Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

Nkechi Leeks Reference number 2301545-2018 v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust Full merits hearing — Employment Tribunal 2024 | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal Watch/University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust Full merits hearing/1801740/2015

Case 1801740/2015 · Employment Tribunal

Nkechi Leeks Reference number 2301545-2018 v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust Full merits hearing — 2024

Case reference: 1801740/2015
Decision date: 13 April 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dyal

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Nkechi Leeks Reference number 2301545-2018

Respondent

University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust Full merits hearing

Claims brought

3 categories

Age discrimination
Disability discrimination
Religion or belief discrimination

Source tags (gov.uk)

Age Discrimination
Disability Discrimination and Religion or Belief Discrimination

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available 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.