Case 1406290/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Akhtaru v The Winchester Diocesan Board of Finance — 2025
- Case reference
- 1406290/2023
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr P English, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Akhtaru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew her complaints of detriment and dismissal for making a protected disclosure when the list of issues was confirmed. Those complaints were dismissed on withdrawal.
For the victimisation complaint, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done three protected acts: raising concerns on 18 January 2023 about treatment because of race, sending an informal grievance on 14 February 2023, and sending a formal grievance on 9 May 2023. The tribunal considered the alleged detriments and found that several had not been proved as alleged; where events had occurred, it accepted non-victimisation reasons such as the role title not existing, sickness absence triggering an absence meeting, reasonable grounds for a disciplinary investigation, and dismissal for gross misconduct.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not proved all matters alleged and that, where the complained-of treatment did happen, including dismissal, it was not done or materially influenced because she had done the protected acts. The victimisation complaint therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaints of detriment and dismissal for making a protected disclosure were dismissed on withdrawal at the start of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the claimant had done protected acts within section 27(2)(d) Equality Act 2010, but the victimisation complaint failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- Equality Act 2010 section 27
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Ayodele v CityLink Ltd
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Kokomane v Boots Management Services Ltd
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Jesudason v Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
- Derbyshire v St Helens MBC
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- British Coal v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Service
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
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.