Case 2305846/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Foroughi v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305846/2021
- Decision date
- 28 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M Foroughi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr M Foroughi's application for interim relief at Croydon by cloud video platform on 28 January 2022 before Employment Judge Nash. The respondent was identified as University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust, and Royal Sussex County Hospital.
The written judgment records that the Claimant's application for interim relief under sections 103A and 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. The judgment does not set out written reasons, noting that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the specified time.
No remedy award is recorded in the judgment, and the written decision does not determine the final merits of any substantive unfair dismissal or protected disclosure complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records only that the Claimant's application for interim relief under sections 103A and 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. It does not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 103A and 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.