Case 6002757/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sorin Radu v London Borough of Hounslow and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002757/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Sorin Radu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief. The claimant said he had been dismissed because of protected disclosures about IT reporting and related matters, while the respondent said he was dismissed for misconduct connected with alleged unauthorised overseas working from a banned country.
For the purposes of the interim relief application, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that the concerns could be protected disclosures. Applying the interim relief threshold, it found no real basis to infer a connection between the disciplinary action and the earlier disclosures, noting the opportunities given to the claimant to provide evidence about his whereabouts.
The application for interim relief was refused. The tribunal noted that the fairness of the disciplinary process and the decision to dismiss were not affected by the deposit order, and that a further case management hearing would be arranged.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the claimant's application for interim relief in a claim alleging dismissal because of protected disclosures. The outcome is marked other because the underlying whistleblowing or unfair dismissal claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Al Qasimi v Robinson EAT 0283/17
- pretty good chance
- Taplin v C Shippam Limited [1978] ICR 1068
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz 2011 IRLR 562
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.