Case 2301981/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mbonu (in person) For the v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301981/2022
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson
- Panel members
- C Edwards, J Jerram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mbonu (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, a Black African prison officer at HMP Swaleside, proved parts of his direct race discrimination complaint. It found that Custodial Manager Richardson falsely stated that a sickness absence review had taken place and created a document to support that account, and that the respondent failed to deal adequately with the claimant's grievance about that conduct. It also found that grievances raised on 1 January 2022 and 18 January 2023 were ignored, and that there was no satisfactory non-race explanation for those failures.
The harassment complaint succeeded in relation to racist comments found to have been made by Mark Ackland and Steven Blanche. The tribunal did not find sufficient evidence that Alex Reynolds had made the alleged racist comment. It held that the proven comments were unwanted conduct related to race and had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
The constructive dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal found a course of conduct which cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence, including the handling of the Richardson grievance and the proven discriminatory treatment. It found the complaint made by Michelle Hodgkinson about the bed watch incident was the last straw, that the claimant had not affirmed the contract, and that he resigned in response to the respondent's conduct. The victimisation complaint was dismissed because the claimant did not establish that the alleged detriments occurred because of the protected act relied upon.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal under section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- implied term of trust and confidence
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Pemberton v Inwood
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Logan v Customs and Excise Commissioners
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
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.