New Presidential Guidance On Interim Relief Applications: What Employers Need to Know On the 22 June 2026 the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales and in Scotland issued joint ‘presidential guidance’ on applications for interim relief. Interim relief is where an employee applies to be reinstated or receive their salary as if they were employed in the interim period between being dismissed and the final ET hearing/ trial. It is only available in very select circumstances such as where an employee is dismissed for whistleblowing, trade union membership or activities, or certain health and safety, employee representative, pension trustee or blacklisting reasons. A successful interim relief application can be devastating for a business, as they may end up paying an employee for years without them working. Interim relief has traditionally been a rarely used corner of tribunal procedure, but the volume of applications has grown sharply due to AI usage, and the new guidance is aimed squarely at managing that increase while confirming that the legal test for granting relief has not changed. Understanding why the guidance exists, what the tribunal will actually assess, and how to respond if an application lands on their desk is now a practical necessity rather than a theoretical one. Why The Guidance Is Being Handed Down Interim relief allows a small category of dismissed employees, those who claim they were dismissed for the reasons set out above, to apply within seven days of dismissal for an order that their employment effectively continues, usually on full pay, pending the final hearing. Because the application must be made so quickly and heard urgently, it compresses what would normally be months of litigation preparation into days. Tribunal offices have reported that the number of applications, once running at around twenty a year nationally, is now arriving at a similar rate within a single month. Analysis of published tribunal decisions suggests the true figure is materially understated, since many applications settle before reaching a hearing. The guidance links part of this rise to claimants using AI tools to draft applications, often with limited regard to the merits of the case, and notes a parallel increase in the volume of documentation submitted with each application. What The Legal Test Is The guidance does not change the underlying law. Interim relief is governed by sections 128 to 132 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the categories listed above, and by sections 161 to 166 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade union related dismissals. The statutory test remains whether it appears to the tribunal “likely” that the claimant will succeed at the final hearing in establishing that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was one of the protected reasons. Case law has long established that “likely” sets a materially higher bar than the balance of probabilities. In Taplin v C Shippam Ltd , the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a claimant must show a “pretty good chance” of success, a standard well above showing a merely reasonable prospect. The new guidance reinforces this, and adds that the more hurdles a claimant faces in establishing their claim, such as a dispute over employment status or whether a resignation should be treated as a dismissal, the harder it becomes to satisfy the tribunal that success is likely. Because the assessment is necessarily summary in nature, conducted on the documents and submissions available within days of dismissal rather than at a full trial, tribunals are expected to reach a swift, if provisional, view rather than undertake the detailed scrutiny of a final hearing. It is therefore heavily in favour of employers, which is unusual for the Tribunal. What Employers Should Do MILS have recently successfully defended a motor industry client against an interim relief application and it is speed and focus which are the priorities. An employer typically has very little notice, so the first task is to get legal advice promptly and begin assembling a clear, well organised account of the reason for dismissal, ideally supported by a witness statement from the dismissing manager and the key contemporaneous documents. Dismissal letters, meeting notes, investigation interviews and alike are all likely to help. It is worth identifying early whether there are any threshold difficulties in the claimant’s case, such as disputed employment status, timing issues, or gaps in the chain connecting the alleged protected act to the dismissal decision, since these can be decisive at the interim stage even though the tribunal is not resolving disputed facts in full. Where an application is properly resisted, it is not unusual for the tribunal to draw an early view on the underlying merits, which can support later strategy on settlement or a deposit order. As always, this advice is general in nature and should be tailored to the circumstances of any individual case. As an RMI member, you have access to the RMI legal advice line, as well as a range of industry experts who can assist you. If you find yourself facing any of the issues outlined above, please contact us at any stage for advice and support as appropriate. Motor Industry Legal Services Motor Industry Legal Services provides fully comprehensive legal advice and representation to UK motor retailers for one annual fee. It is the only regulated law firm in the UK which specialises in motor law and motor trade law. MILS currently advises over 1,000 individual businesses within the sector as well as the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI) and its members.