Case 2301943/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ngozi Carol Ufomadu v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 2301943/2024
- Decision date
- 3 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ngozi Carol Ufomadu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Ngozi Carol Ufomadu's complaint that Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust subjected her to detriment for making a protected disclosure. It also dismissed her complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and her complaint of unfair dismissal under section 98. Each complaint was found not well-founded.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing but does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or further reasoning. It records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.