Case 6019574/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G. Hughes v Mental Health Care UK Ltd. HELD AT/BY: Mold by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019574/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G. Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing decision on the Claimant’s application for interim relief in a public interest disclosure case against Mental Health Care UK Ltd. The hearing took place by CVP before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan on 16 January 2025, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent represented by counsel and solicitors. The Tribunal heard submissions only, in the absence of evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the interim relief application. It found that it was unable to conclude that it appeared likely that a Tribunal would later find that the reason, or principal reason if more than one, for the dismissal was that the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. The written decision records that the application therefore failed.
The decision also records that the Respondent’s response to the claim was due by 30 January 2025 and that a case management preliminary hearing would be required in due course. No monetary award was made at this stage. The decision was approved on 16 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 30 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under Rules 94 and 52-54 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 was dismissed. The Tribunal said it was unable to conclude that it appeared likely a Tribunal would find that the reason, or principal reason if more than one, for the dismissal was that the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.