Case 2302877/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Ojeniyi v Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302877/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Ojeniyi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment refused the Claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 11 July 2025. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and dismissed the application under rule 72.
On race discrimination and harassment, the Tribunal stated that it had considered whether the burden of proof shifted, accepted the Respondent's explanations, and found no evidence from which it could infer that the treatment or unwanted conduct was because of or related to race. It also rejected reconsideration grounds concerning continuing acts, comparators, racialised framing, and alleged discriminatory effect.
On whistleblowing and victimisation-related grounds, the Tribunal stated that the alleged disclosure did not meet the public interest test and that the alleged detriments would in any event have failed because they were done for reasons other than protected disclosures. It also stated that the NMC referral was made because the Respondent reasonably believed the Claimant posed a risk to patient safety, not because of protected acts.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The reconsideration judgment states that the Tribunal dismissed race discrimination allegations, finding no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred and accepting the Respondent's explanations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The reconsideration judgment records that the harassment allegation failed because the Tribunal found no evidence from which it could conclude or infer that the unwanted conduct was related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The reconsideration judgment states that the alleged disclosure did not meet the public interest test and that, in any event, the alleged detriments were done for reasons other than the alleged protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The reconsideration judgment refers to protected acts and the NMC referral, and states that the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that the referral was made because of patient safety concerns rather than because of the protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category includes unfair dismissal, but the reconsideration judgment excerpt does not set out the unfair dismissal reasoning or remedy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing category includes breach of contract, but the reconsideration judgment excerpt does not set out the breach of contract reasoning or remedy. |
Legal tests applied
13 references- rule 72
- rules 70(1) and (2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s. 136 Equality Act 2010
- Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] ICR 1519
- s. 26 Equality Act 2010
- s. 43B ERA 1996
- Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed [2017] ICR 1039
- s. 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] ICR 530
- s. 23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] ICR 337
- Richmond v Dhaliwal
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
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.