Case 6004074/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Abdulwhab v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004074/2025
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Abdulwhab
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing concerned the claimant's application for interim relief, based on his allegation that the ending of his employment was because he had made protected disclosures about recruitment vetting. The respondent said the claimant had been employed on a fixed-term contract as maternity cover, ending on 31 January 2025, and that there was funding for only one doctor in the post when the substantive postholder returned.
The tribunal applied the interim relief threshold of whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding at a final hearing. It found that the documents supported the respondent's position that the claimant entered into a fixed-term contract ending on 31 January 2025, and was not persuaded that documents mentioning other dates established an agreed variation or extension of that end date.
The tribunal was not satisfied, for interim relief purposes, that there was likely to be a finding that protected disclosures were the principal reason for the ending of employment. It noted that the claimant might ultimately establish protected disclosures and causation at a full hearing, but that this would require witness evidence, documents, and full consideration of the evidence. The application for interim relief therefore did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief in relation to an alleged automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA. The substantive whistleblowing dismissal complaint was not finally determined and was described as arguable requiring further case management and evidence. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Hancock v Ter-Berg
- Taplin v C.Shippam Limited
- pretty good chance of succeeding
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfaz
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Blackbay Venture Limited v Gahir
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
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.