Case 1304270/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Martha Ankamah v The Governors of St Mary Magdalene Church of England Primary School Heard at LONDON SOUTH Hybrid — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304270/2017
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart
- Venue
- LONDON SOUTH Hybrid
- Panel members
- M Cann, F Whiting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Martha Ankamah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a teaching support assistant, brought claims arising from an incident involving a pupil on 22 June 2023, the respondent's investigation, her summary dismissal, and the appeal process. She alleged direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination and race-related harassment complaints. It also dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, finding that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and that it should not substitute its own view for that of the respondent.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct was motivated by concern for the pupil and was not wilful or deliberate misconduct, but that her momentary loss of control and inappropriate physical restraint or force amounted to sufficiently serious negligent conduct to constitute repudiatory conduct. The wrongful dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment on the ground of race was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of wrongful dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- gross misconduct
- repudiatory conduct
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.