30th July 2026
New Guidance on Interim Relief Applications
Last month, the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales and Scotland issued new guidance on interim relief applications. The guidance comes in response to a significant increase in both the number and complexity of these applications, placing additional pressure on an already stretched Employment Tribunal system.
While the guidance does not change the law, it provides important clarification about how Tribunals will manage interim relief cases and serves as a reminder of the strict procedural and evidential requirements that apply. For employers, understanding these developments is crucial, particularly as interim relief claims can carry significant financial and operational consequences.
What Is Interim Relief?
Interim relief is an emergency remedy available in a limited category of automatic unfair dismissal claims. It is most commonly seen in whistleblowing cases, but it can also arise in dismissals connected with trade union activities, health and safety activities, employee representation rights and certain other statutory protections.
Unlike most Employment Tribunal claims, in which it will take many months (if not years) to reach a Final Hearing, an interim relief application is designed to provide immediate protection to an employee who alleges they have been dismissed for a prohibited reason.
Importantly, the application must be presented within 7 days of the effective date of dismissal,
If successful, the effect of the dismissal is effectively suspended until the substantive claim can be heard in full. The Tribunal may:
- Order the employee to reinstate the employee;
- Order the employer to re-engage the employee in suitable alternative employment; or
- Make a continuation of contract order, under which the employee is treated as remaining employed and continues to receive salary and contractual benefits until the claim is determined at a Final Hearing.
Why Has New Guidance Been Issued?
The Presidential Guidance was published in response to 2 notable trends that have emerged in recent years.
First, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of interim relief applications being lodged. Tribunal statistics indicate that applications have risen from approximately 20 per year to around 20 per month.
Secondly, there has been a significant increase in the volume of supporting documentation accompanying applications. The guidance expressly notes that the growing use of AI appears to have contributed to lengthy witness statements, submissions and document bundles being produced by Claimants.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has expressed concerns that these developments are having an adverse impact on the administration of justice. Indeed, interim relief applications must be dealt with urgently, often requiring hearings to be listed within days. As a result, disproportionate applications can create delays for other Tribunal users by requiring hearings to be postponed.
What Does The Guidance Say?
Although the guidance does not alter the substantive legal test, it reinforces several key principles that parties should bear in mind when preparing and responding to applications.
Firstly, the guidance reiterates that interim relief remains one of the most difficult remedies for Claimants to obtain. To succeed, a claimant must demonstrate that they have a “pretty good chance of success” at the final hearing. This is a significantly higher threshold than simply showing that a claim is arguable or has reasonable prospects. In practice, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is likely to find that the principal reason, or sole reason, for the dismissal was the protected reason relied upon by the claimant, such as making a protected disclosure.
Secondly, the guidance emphasises that interim relief hearings are intended to be concise and proportionate. Given the urgency with which these applications must be dealt, Tribunals are discouraging extensive submissions and excessive documentation. Instead, parties are expected to focus on the key issues relevant to the interim relief test rather than attempting to litigate the entire claim at an early stage.
Thirdly (and perhaps most topical) the guidance specifically addresses the growing use of AI within these applications. While the guidance states that Claimants are free to use AI, it emphasises that when using it, documents must still be accurate, relevant, concise and proportionate.
Fourthly, the guidance has been used to remind Claimants that reinstatement and re-engagement are the primary remedies available when interim relief is granted. Claimants sometimes view interim relief as a mechanism for securing continued salary payments following dismissal. However, the Tribunal will first consider whether reinstatement or re-engagement is appropriate before making a continuation of contract order.
Finally, the guidance clarifies that interim relief hearings are not mini-trials. Specifically, the Tribunal will generally determine an application based on written evidence and submissions. Oral evidence will only be heard if the Tribunal directs otherwise, which remains highly unusual. This reflects the fact that the Tribunal is not making any final fact findings at this stage. Instead, it is carrying out a summary assessment of the claimant’s prospects of success based on the evidence available at short notice. Consequently, the quality and relevance of the written material submitted is often far more important than the volume of material.
Key Takeaways For Employers
Whilst interim relief applications remain relatively uncommon compared with other Employment Tribunal claims, they are becoming increasingly frequent, particularly in whistleblowing disputes.
Given the severe financial consequences that can arise if an application succeeds (as well as the anticipated impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on claims more generally), employers should ensure they are prepared to respond quickly and effectively.
In practical terms, employers should ensure that documentation relating to disciplinary processes, performance concerns, investigations and dismissals is retained and readily accessible- noting that the rationale for dismissal is properly documented at the time the decisions are taken, rather than relying on retrospective explanations. This is particularly important where there is any possibility that an employee may allege they have made a protected disclosure or raised health and safety concerns.
