Case 1402570/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Tavakoli v Rayner Intraocular Lenses Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402570/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr J Evans, Mr P Flanagan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Tavakoli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal by VHS on 13 to 16 September 2021 before Employment Judge J Bax sitting with Mr J Evans and Mr P Flanagan. The written judgment records that the claimant, Mr H Tavakoli, was represented by himself with Mr T Deal, Counsel, acting as McKenzie Friend, and that the respondent was represented by Mr M Curtis, Counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claim of automatically unfair dismissal and his claim for detriment for making protected disclosures. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s reasons, stating instead that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim for making protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.