The High Court has refused an employee’s application for interim orders after finding she had not shown a strong case likely to succeed at trial in her dispute over dismissal during probation.
The employee sought orders to prevent her termination or removal from her position, stop her employer commenting on her performance, and require continued payment of salary and benefits, including pension contributions. The application was heard on 17 February 2023, after the employer’s position was that her employment had already ended.
The employee’s contract said employment would begin on 16 March 2022 and that the first 11 months of the contract would be probation. She argued that probation began on the contract date, 21 February 2022, and ended on 20 January 2023. The employer said it began when she started work and would run until 15 February 2023.
It was common ground that she was dismissed with immediate effect on 26 January 2023, paid two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, and dismissed over alleged performance issues rather than misconduct. The employee argued that she was outside probation and entitled to fair procedures and the contract’s termination protections. She also disputed whether the contract allowed payment in lieu of notice during probation. The employer maintained that she was still on probation and could be dismissed for performance reasons at its discretion.
The employee also alleged that the employer had failed to carry out proper probation reviews and to meet its public sector equality duty. She said she had disclosed medical conditions and that reasonable accommodation had not been made. The employer disputed her criticisms and argued that the court should not decide discrimination claims at first instance.
Justice Eileen Roberts said the interlocutory application could not resolve conflicts in affidavit evidence or decide who would ultimately win at trial. She considered the employee’s arguments about the probation dates and payment in lieu of notice to be fair, but not strong enough to create a reasonable expectation that she was more likely than not to succeed. She also found the employee had not shown a strong case concerning fair procedures or the asserted equality duty.
The judge additionally concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy if the employee succeeded at trial, and that the balance of convenience weighed against the requested orders. The court refused the interim relief. It did not determine the underlying claims, which remain for trial. The judge directed that the matter be listed on 16 March 2023 to address costs and other issues, including a timetable or directions for trial.
The court had already ordered that no matter relating to the proceedings likely to identify the employee could be published or broadcast. The judgment was delivered on 2 March 2023.