London Borough of Hounslow and others

Case Summary

Employment Judge Fowell refused the application for interim relief in a case where Mr Sorin Radu, an Information Communication Technology Security Officer/Cybersecurity Analyst at London Borough of Hounslow, was dismissed. The judge emphasized that the appropriate test is not beyond reasonable doubt but 'pretty good chance' and discussed the background of the case involving whistleblowing allegations.

• •dismissal on grounds of misconduct
• •whistleblowing allegations

1 of 7 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Heard at: Croydon (by video) On: 23 July 2024 Claimant: Mr Sorin Radu Respondents: (1) London Borough of Hounslow (2) Mr Jefferson Nwokeoma (3) Mr Will Simpson Before: Employment Judge Fowell Representation: Claimant In Person Respondent Simon Harding of counsel JUDGMENT ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE The application for interim relief is refused. REASONS Background 1. By way of background, Mr Radu worked for the London Borough of Hounslow as an Information Communication Technology Security Officer / Cybersecurity Analyst. For the most part he was working at home. The Council say that he was dismissed on grounds of misconduct, because they believed he had been working from an overseas location, and from a country on their banned list. He 2 of 7 says that he was dismissed because of whistleblowing allegations he had made, i.e. protected disclosures, which he had made from September 2023 onwards 2. These written reasons are provided at the request of Mr Radu. As usual, some editing has taken place to avoid repetition or unnecessary detail and these written reasons stand as the final version. The appropriate test and approach 3. In Al Qasimi v Robinson EAT 0283/17 the correct approach to such applications was described by Her Honour Judge Eady QC as follows: ‘By its nature, the application had to be determined expeditiously and on a summary basis. The [tribunal] had to do the best it could with such material as the parties had been able to deploy at short notice and to make as good an assessment as it felt able. The employment judge also had to be careful to avoid making findings that might tie the hands of the [tribunal] ultimately charged with the final determination of the merits of the points raised. His task was thus very much an impressionistic one: to form a view as to how the matter looked, as to whether the claimant had a pretty good chance and w…