Case 1400136/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Evelyn Otoo v Bestway Panacea Holdings Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400136/2022
- Decision date
- 22 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mrs W Ellis, Mr E Beese
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Evelyn Otoo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Bristol, before Employment Judge Midgley with Mrs W Ellis and Mr E Beese, recorded that Miss Evelyn Otoo's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and unpaid annual leave were not well founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons, only that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The claims were therefore disposed of in full by dismissal on 7 September 2023, with the written judgment sent to the parties on 22 September 2023. No monetary award is recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and says it was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to direct race discrimination and records that it was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid annual leave and records that this claim was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.