Case 2303718/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Miah Nwohia v Arora SLG Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303718/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Ms L Lindsay, Ms G Mitchell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Miah Nwohia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing held by video at Croydon from 3 to 6 March 2025, the tribunal unanimously upheld Miss Miah Nwohia's victimisation claim against Arora SLG Limited. The tribunal said the principal basis for that finding was that she made a verbal allegation of race discrimination to a manager and was dismissed at a probationary review meeting shortly afterwards.
The tribunal dismissed the harassment claim and the direct race discrimination claim as unfounded. It also recorded that the unfair dismissal claim had been withdrawn at an earlier preliminary hearing and was dismissed in the judgment.
Remedy was not determined at this stage. The tribunal directed that the question of remedy would be resolved at a further hearing by video on 3 April 2025 at 10 am, with the claimant attending the hearing centre in person.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal upheld this claim on the principal basis that the claimant made a verbal allegation of race discrimination to a manager and was dismissed at a probationary review meeting shortly afterwards. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed as unfounded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct discrimination claim on grounds of race was dismissed as unfounded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that this claim had been withdrawn at an earlier preliminary hearing and was dismissed in the liability judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.