Case 1403146/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mihai Cristian Bunghez v Destiny Healthcare Private Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1403146/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mihai Cristian Bunghez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a compliance manager by the respondent and raised compliance issues during his employment. He also made a report to the CQC. The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that his earlier comments or the CQC report amounted to protected disclosures, including because he had not identified a specific legal obligation or a reasonable belief that health and safety was endangered.
For the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was a breakdown of trust and confidence in the claimant as an employee, not retaliation for the CQC report. The report formed part of the context, but the tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him because it considered he lacked the knowledge, skill, or experience required for the role and had not used the respondent's reporting policies.
The tribunal found that the claimant had produced no evidence that overtime was owed. It did find that he was dismissed on 4 July 2024 but paid only to 2 July 2024, so two days' pay was owed on termination.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure and dismissed the protected disclosure detriment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was breakdown of trust and confidence, not the CQC report. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant was owed two days' pay on termination. No monetary figure was stated in the supplied text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A
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.