Case 2301638/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. Azeez-Harris v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301638/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Sitting
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr. R. Spry-Shute, Ms. H. Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. Azeez-Harris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal (hybrid) from 8 to 16 July 2024 before Employment Judge Sudra, sitting with non-legal members Mr. R. Spry-Shute and Ms. H. Carter. The written judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr. K. Wilford and the respondent by Mr. R. Mclean of Counsel.
The tribunal's judgment is brief and states only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate factual findings, liability reasoning, or remedy analysis are set out in the written record provided. The tribunal also noted that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written record does not separate the tribunal's reasoning between the race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims; it records only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record does not separate the tribunal's reasoning between the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims; it records only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.