Case 2304981/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v 1) Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 2) Dr T Lawson 3) Dr V Ponnusamy 4) Dr S Edwards RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304981/2022
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded a preliminary hearing heard by video at London South Employment Tribunal on 4 November 2025 before Employment Judge Burge. The claimant was Dr S Nzekwue and the respondents were Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dr T Lawson, Dr V Ponnusamy, and Dr S Edwards.
The judgment states that the complaint of protected disclosure detriment was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also states that allegations 8(f), 8(g), and 8(j) in the Agreed List of Issues were dismissed upon withdrawal, but the text provided does not identify what those allegations concerned.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the complaint of protected disclosure detriment was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that allegations 8(f), 8(g), and 8(j) in the Agreed List of Issues were dismissed upon withdrawal, but the PDF text does not identify the legal nature of those allegations. | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.