Case 2225535/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MISS NONHLANHLA NYATHI v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2225535/2024
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MISS NONHLANHLA NYATHI
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a liability judgment heard at London Central by cloud video platform on 2 and 3 October 2025 before Employment Judge Nash. The tribunal held that Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust unfairly dismissed Miss Nonhlanhla Nyathi contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that the claimant did not unreasonably refuse an offer of suitable employment under section 141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the respondent was ordered to pay a statutory redundancy payment under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The extracted judgment records liability only and does not state any monetary figures for the redundancy payment or any separate compensation award. It was approved on 3 October 2025 and sent to the parties on 9 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment found the dismissal unfair contrary to section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant did not unreasonably refuse an offer of suitable employment under section 141 Employment Rights Act 1996 and directed payment of a statutory redundancy payment under section 135 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.141 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.