Case 1303125/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Okiemute Ogoh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust FINAL HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303125/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Tribunal
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Sonia Cambell, John Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Okiemute Ogoh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the dismissal was subject to a 25% reduction for contributory fault. The available text indicates that the respondent relied on concerns connected with patient care and gross misconduct, and that the Tribunal did not find race to be the reason for the dismissal.
The public interest disclosure detriment claim was dismissed. The direct race discrimination allegations were also dismissed, including allegations concerning reliance on the NMC Code and the referral to the NMC; the Tribunal found that a white nurse in the same circumstances would have been treated in the same way.
The victimisation claim was dismissed. Although the respondent accepted that the claimant's appeal complaint of race discrimination was a protected act and that the NMC referral was a detriment, the Tribunal found that the reason for the referral was the respondent's belief that it was required following dismissal for gross misconduct, not the protected act.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld pursuant to s98 Employment Rights Act 1996, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a Public Interest Disclosure Detriment claim pursuant to s47B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim pursuant to s9 and s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The protected act was the claimant's formal complaint of race discrimination in her appeal against dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s9 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s27 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.