It is now over a year since Manx employment legislation was amended to give certain whistleblowing claimants the right to apply for interim relief. This important change was made by the Employment (Amendment) Act 2024 of Tynwald and applicable to protected disclosures made on or after 1 April 2025. It allows a dismissed employee to potentially extend employment if they can show on an interim basis a good chance of establishing that they made a protected disclosure and that doing so was the main reason for their dismissal.

Such claimants can, on an interim relief application, then benefit from potential re-instatement or re-engagement by the employer or if that is declined a continuation of the contract by receiving salary and benefits but without the need to work. The claimant then pursues the Tribunal action to full trial but does so while still being paid which can have the effect of turning the tables on the employer and effectively encouraging early settlement.

Section 118A of the Employment Act 2006 sets out the detail available to a whistleblowing claim and mandates that an application for interim relief pending determination of the full complaint has to be made within seven days of dismissal. The Tribunal must determine the interim application as soon as possible to assess whether, on a summary review of the case, it is likely a protected disclosure has been made and was the principal reason for dismissal. Case law shows that when assessing the likelihood of success the Tribunal interprets this as meaning the employee has a pretty good chance of doing so; this is a higher threshold than the normal balance of probabilities standard of proof, entailing a threshold of at least 51% prospects.

This emergency remedy has featured in British employment legislation since 1992 but in recent times their Tribunals have experienced a large increase in such applications. UK law differs slightly to the Manx provisions as it applies to a wider category of claimants. In view of this surge in interim relief applications, English, Welsh and Scottish Tribunals have issued new Presidential Guidance on how such applications are to be handled; it came into force on 22 June 2026. It is interesting to note the guidance partly attributes the recent significant increase in interim relief applications to the use of artificial intelligence. It states that Tribunals were previously receiving approximately 20 interim relief applications each year but that has now increased to 20 per month. This is having an effect on their Tribunal systems because interim relief applications must be heard promptly and with limited resources this leads to other hearings being further delayed.

The Tribunal backlog in Britain might itself be another reason why Tribunals are facing more interim relief applications as claimants become less willing to wait years for final trial and seek a much quicker route. However, commentators agree that artificial intelligence is partly driving this increase because it tends to be optimistic in its ‘advice’ to claimants. Emboldened claimants might then make an interim relief application without having proper grounds, so they fail to establish the “pretty good chance” test reiterated in the Presidential Guidance.

The Isle of Man’s recent such law remains untested in reported Tribunal judgments albeit at least one section 118A application has been made to our Tribunal but later withdrawn. The process can compress lengthy litigation into a short period. And if the claimant obtains an interim order that they continue to be paid salary and benefits, the time pressure of reaching final trial is transferred to the employer. Even if the employer wins the case at final hearing, it does not recover the interim remuneration payments made.

When our Employment & Equality Tribunal hears such applications, the UK Presidential Guidance will be really useful. In addition, Manx claimants considering a section 118A application should read the guidance as it gives a realistic assessment of the difficulty in obtaining such an order. If a claimant is relying on AI assistance then the guidance should act as a reality check to ensure AI is not being overoptimistic in telling users to apply for interim relief. The guidance infers that the large increase in detail and documents which habitually goes hand in hand with a claimant engaging AI is not particularly helpful. It states that where cases rely on multiple potential protected disclosures this can make it more difficult for a claimant to obtain emergency relief when compared with those that focus on the stronger aspects of a case that are easily identifiable.

Advocate John Aycock is head of the M&P Legal employment team and has 35 years’ experience of advising on employment law matters in three jurisdictions. Please note this article is not legal advice and you should take specific advice on the facts of each case.

Back to top