Case 2301767/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms V Carridice v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301767/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Dr S Chacko, Mr S Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms V Carridice
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South on 11 and 12 August 2025 before Employment Judge Atkins, with members Dr S Chacko and Mr S Townsend. The claimant did not appear and was not represented; the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal gave a unanimous oral judgment.
It found that the claims of direct race discrimination, harassment due to race, and victimisation were not well founded and therefore failed. It recorded that the direct age discrimination claim and the sexual harassment claim were withdrawn by the claimant. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 the claim of direct race discrimination was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claim of harassment due to race was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the claim of victimisation was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the direct age discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded that the sexual harassment claim was withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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.