Case 2300464/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Elizbieta Pyrksoz-Cifonelli v St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and 3 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300464/2018
- Decision date
- 18 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
- Panel members
- Ms J Forecast, Ms C Edwards
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Dr Elizbieta Pyrksoz-Cifonelli
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Martin sat with Ms J Forecast and Ms C Edwards and heard the case by CVP over hearings listed on 7 to 11 September 2020, 14 to 16 September 2020, and 17 to 18 September 2020. The reserved judgment states that the claimant's claims were not successful and were dismissed.
The same judgment records that the respondents' application for costs succeeded, and that the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent a £20,000 contribution to its costs. The extract states that oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims in case numbers 2300464/2018 and 2302604/2018 were not successful and were dismissed. The written extract does not set out the substantive reasons for the dismissal, but the case listing identifies the matter as a race discrimination case. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.