Case 1806665/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Mbonda v Quarryfields Health Care Limited Heard: in Sheffield — 2025
- Case reference
- 1806665/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilks, Ms N Arshad-Mather
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Mbonda
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Ayre and lay members Mr D Wilks and Ms N Arshad-Mather, heard the case on 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2025. It found that Quarryfields Health Care Limited discriminated against Ms B Mbonda because of race in relation to the disciplinary process, the final written warning issued on 20 July 2023, and the appeal process that ran from 26 July 2023 to 12 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found race discrimination in the respondent's disciplinary process, final written warning dated 20 July 2023, and appeal process between 26 July 2023 and 12 September 2023. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The allegation that the respondent failed to carry out a full and fair investigation between 14 March 2023 and 17 April 2023 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.