Case 2403205/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Chan v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 2403205/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Chan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims including harassment relating to race and direct race discrimination against Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. At the hearing, the claimant withdrew allegations numbered 1(2), 1(3) and 6(2) from the list of issues, and those allegations were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining harassment allegations relating to race and dismissed the remaining allegations of direct race discrimination. The judgment records that all claims in the case were dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment because reasons had been given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The claimant withdrew some allegations numbered 1(2), 1(3) and 6(2), which were dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining allegations of harassment relating to race failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The remaining allegations of direct race discrimination failed and were dismissed. The judgment states that, for the avoidance of doubt, all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.