Case 2303331/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Ibe v Dr S Ganesaratnam Dr S La Porta Dr A Otley Dr A Zahiria Trading As The Rowans Surgery — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303331/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Panel members
- Mr A Fairbank, Mr C Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Ibe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held unanimously that the claims were not well founded and dismissed them. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons are provided in the judgment extract.
The available judgment text does not set out separate factual findings for each cause of action, but the case was listed in the gov.uk categories for age discrimination, race discrimination and working time. On that basis, the extract supports that those claims were all rejected and that no remedy was awarded. Because the reasons were given orally, the public record provided here contains no further explanation of the tribunal's reasoning beyond the overall dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Working time regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.