Case 2203805/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Agbobu First v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Second Respondent: Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203805/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Agbobu First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in London Central on 2 and 3 March 2023, Employment Judge E Burns sat alone to deal with the claimant's original claims. The judgment records that the claimant withdrew claims that she was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs, claims relating to requests for flexible or part-time working, harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal also struck out, on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success, the claimant's direct race discrimination claim against the second respondent concerning pay compared with colleagues. The judgment states that this strike out did not apply to the first respondent.
In addition, the tribunal struck out the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against both respondents. The judgment does not record any monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | Claim relating to requests for flexible or part-time working; the judgment does not specify the exact statutory basis. Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant; the judgment does not identify the protected characteristic relied on. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant; the judgment does not identify the protected characteristic relied on. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim about pay compared with colleagues. Struck out against the second respondent only; the judgment states it was not struck out against the first respondent. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 ERA 1996 struck out against both respondents for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.