Case 1302962/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Dr R Ibakakombo, representative For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1302962/2016
- Decision date
- 16 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
- Panel members
- Mr M Bell, Mr G Murray
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Dr R Ibakakombo, representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge VC Dean with members Mr M Bell and Mr G Murray, held that Mrs Nissan Lahi was not unfairly dismissed by Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust in breach of s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The decision records the dismissal of the unfair dismissal complaint and does not identify any monetary award.
The tribunal also rejected the disability discrimination claim. It described the protected characteristic relied on as the claimant's disabling condition of back pain and found that the respondent had not unlawfully discriminated against her in breach of ss.15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The race discrimination complaint was likewise dismissed. The tribunal held that the respondent had not unlawfully discriminated against the claimant by reason of race in breach of s.13 of the Equality Act 2010. The victimisation complaint under s.27 of the Equality Act 2010 was also rejected.
The written judgment concludes that all of the claimant's complaints were dismissed. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no separate written reasons were provided in the document unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed in breach of s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal rejected the allegation of unlawful discrimination by reason of the claimant's disabling condition of back pain under ss.15, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the race discrimination complaint under s.13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal rejected the victimisation complaint under s.27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.