Case 2303797/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Abu v - Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Second Respondent: (Dismissed) Third respondent: Ms G Brockwell Fourth respondent: Mrs S Underwood — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303797/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Venue
- London South Hearing Centre in person
- Panel members
- Mr M Cann, Mr C Mardner
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge McLaren and members Mr M Cann and Mr C Mardner, heard the case in person at London South Hearing Centre on 2 to 11 June 2025. In its unanimous judgment, it first ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider detriments/direct discrimination issues arising from the treatment set out at 25(a) to (f) of the agreed issues list because those matters were out of time and did not form part of a continuing state of affairs or a series of similar acts. It held that it did have jurisdiction over the matters at 25(g) to (i), which it treated as part of a continuing state of affairs or as similar acts brought within three months of the last act.
All substantive complaints were then dismissed. The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures was found not well-founded. The complaint of direct race discrimination was also not well-founded, as was the complaint of victimisation. The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal was likewise dismissed. The written record does not set out a damages award or any other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of being subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the detriment/direct discrimination issues listed at 25(a)-(f) because they were out of time and not part of a continuing state of affairs or a series of similar acts; it did have jurisdiction over 25(g)-(i), but the direct race discrimination complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatically unfair dismissal. | 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.