Case 1402692/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Muhammad Haque v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust RECONSIDERATION — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402692/2024
- Decision date
- 19 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Muhammad Haque
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied by emails dated 19 January 2026 for reconsideration of a reserved Judgment dated 8 December 2025, which had been sent to the parties on 5 January 2026. The Tribunal noted that the application was made within the relevant 14-day time frame under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal identified the reconsideration ground under Rule 68(1) as whether reconsideration was necessary in the interests of justice. It concluded under Rule 70(2) that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, noting that the points raised had been raised at the hearing or could have been, and that the additional documents were not accepted as material that could not have been presented at the time.
The application for reconsideration was refused. The judgment does not set out any monetary remedy or identify lay panel members.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a reconsideration decision only. It refuses the Claimant's application for reconsideration and does not state the outcome of the underlying breach of contract or written statement claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 68(1) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 69 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 70(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.