Case 1600978/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K. Ockenden-White v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600978/2021
- Decision date
- 22 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mrs J. Beard, Mr A Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K. Ockenden-White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's claims of harassment and direct sex discrimination, and sexual harassment, relating to an incident occurring before or on 12 August 2020. It found those claims had been presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the claim on 20 July 2021.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claims of harassment and direct sex discrimination, and sexual harassment, relating to an incident on 7 April 2021. It found those claims were not well-founded and failed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment in relation to the protected characteristic of sex, including sexual harassment, was dismissed for the incident before or on 12 August 2020 as presented out of time, with no just and equitable extension; the equivalent claim for the 7 April 2021 incident was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination in relation to the protected characteristic of sex was dismissed for the incident before or on 12 August 2020 as presented out of time, with no just and equitable extension; the equivalent claim for the 7 April 2021 incident was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.