Case 1403943/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Van Den Berg, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403943/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mrs R Goddard, Mr P Flannagan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms D Van Den Berg, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Dr Arun Chind, was engaged via an agency as a locum occupational health consultant by Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust from 8 August 2022. His assignment was terminated with effect from 3 February 2023, with one week's pay in lieu of notice. He brought claims of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 and detriment for making a protected disclosure; the latter was withdrawn during the hearing, as was an allegation concerning a subject access request.
The respondent accepted that the claimant had done a protected act by emailing Ms Downham on 24 January 2023 alleging contravention of the public sector equality duty. The tribunal found that the decision by Dr Rowlands to terminate the claimant's assignment on 26 January 2023 was significantly influenced by the doing of that protected act, and that the act and the manner of doing it were effectively one and the same. The allegation of victimisation by termination was therefore well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining victimisation allegations, finding that the claimant had not proved a causal link between the protected act and the alleged detriments concerning the failure to provide written reasons for termination, the one week's notice rather than two, and the handling of and delay in responding to the grievance. A remedies hearing was directed in respect of the upheld termination claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Allegation that the respondent terminated the claimant's assignment on 26 January 2023 because he had done a protected act (email of 24 January 2023 alleging contravention of the public sector equality duty). Tribunal found the protected act was a significant influence on Dr Rowlands' decision to terminate. Remedy to be determined at a separate remedies hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Allegation that the respondent failed to provide a reason for the termination of the assignment. Tribunal found the claimant had not proved a causal link to the protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Allegation that the assignment was terminated with inadequate notice (one week paid in lieu rather than two weeks). Tribunal found the protected act was not a significant influence on the notice pay decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Allegation that the respondent failed to respond and/or delayed in responding to the grievance raised on 26 April 2023. Tribunal found the reasons were nothing to do with the protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Allegation that the respondent refused to investigate the grievance or hold a grievance meeting (also alleged as breach of the ACAS Code). Tribunal found the reasons were nothing to do with the protected act. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- burden of proof provisions
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.