Case 2302612/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Odhegba v NHS Trust Development Authority and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302612/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. G. Mitchell, Ms H. Bharadia
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M. Odhegba
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 4 to 8, 11 and 12 October 2021 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, sitting with members Ms. G. Mitchell and Ms H. Bharadia. The claimant was Mr M. Odhegba and the respondents were NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor.
The written record states that the claimant's complaint of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. It also records that the complaints of victimisation and harassment were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate remedy or compensation figure is set out in the decision record provided.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice. The extracted record therefore contains the outcomes only, and not the tribunal's full reasoning beyond the statement that each complaint was not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of victimisation was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of harassment was not well founded and dismissed it. | 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.