Dr J Mangrola v Home Office — 2025

The Tribunal considered the Claimant's application for interim relief. The application was based on his case that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed because he had made protected disclosures. The Respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct arising from four matters, including language used about managers and sending work emails containing sensitive or personal information to a personal address.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that his 4 April 2022 email to the permanent secretaries was a protected disclosure, which the Respondent did not dispute. It was not persuaded that he had a pretty good chance of showing protected disclosures for the other issues relied on.

The Tribunal was not persuaded that the Claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that any protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It took account of the Respondent's misconduct explanation, the dismissing officer's evidence, the lack of evidence supporting the Claimant's argument that others had made the decision, and the timing of the alleged disclosures. The application for interim relief was dismissed.