Case 1400968/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Adewusi v North Bristol NHS Trust and 7 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400968/2021
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
Parties
9 namedClaimant
Ms O Adewusi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 13 October 2022, the tribunal recorded that specified claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. These included all claims against the Fifth and Eighth Respondents, the complaints under s. 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all complaints of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability, and all complaints of indirect discrimination.
The judgment did not determine the merits of those withdrawn complaints and made no remedy award. It stated that all other claims would proceed in accordance with the case management order of the same date.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaints under s. 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | All complaints of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | All complaints of indirect discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not restate the protected characteristic for the indirect discrimination complaints, but the listed discrimination ground in the judgment is disability. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | All claims against the Fifth and Eighth Respondents, Mr Rayner and Ms L Perry, were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s. 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.