Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a reconsideration judgment regarding an earlier interim relief application. The underlying claim for automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of whistleblowing has not yet been heard on its merits. The tribunal refused the interim relief application and refused reconsideration.
The claimant alleged he made protected disclosures. The tribunal found at the interim relief hearing that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of establishing he made protected disclosures. The full merits hearing has not yet taken place.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief on 18 November 2024. The judge did not find the claimant had a pretty good chance of success in proving protected disclosure or automatic unfair dismissal. The reconsideration application was refused as documents alleged to be false played no part in the original decision.
Facts
Dr Mangrola applied for interim relief following his dismissal by the Home Office, alleging he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal refused his interim relief application on 18 November 2024. He then applied for reconsideration, alleging the respondent had submitted two false documents to the tribunal (letters said to be from Mark Osborne and Sir Matthew Rycroft). He argued he never received these documents and requested forensic IT examination or, failing that, that the response be struck out.
Decision
The tribunal refused the reconsideration application. The judge found no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked because the two disputed documents had played no part in the original decision to refuse interim relief. The focus had been on whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing protected disclosures and automatic unfair dismissal, not on what investigative steps the respondent had taken.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications will fail where the alleged new evidence or error did not materially affect the tribunal's original reasoning and decision.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6013373/2024
- Decision date
- 19 January 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No