Case 2404836/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ulaszek Mr I Shah v Future Directions CIC — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404836/2022
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ulaszek Mr I Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 1 July 2022 in Manchester, Employment Judge Phil Allen considered interim relief applications brought by Mr M Ulaszek and Mr I Shah against Future Directions CIC. The claimants appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr E Morgan QC.
The tribunal held that it did not appear likely that, in determining the complaints, it would find that the principal reason for the dismissals was that either claimant had made one or more protected disclosures. On that basis, the applications for interim relief were refused.
The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested. The decision published on 8 July 2022 records refusal of interim relief only; no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief applications for both claimants were refused. The tribunal said it did not appear likely that, in determining the complaints, it would find that the principal reason for dismissal was that either claimant had made one or more protected disclosures. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.