Case 2406075/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bondafide v Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406075/2020
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Murphy, Dr H Vahramian
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bondafide
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim remotely by CVP at Manchester on 26 and 27 May 2021 before Employment Judge Dunlop, with Mr A Murphy and Dr H Vahramian sitting as the panel members. The respondent was Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust and the claimant was Mr M Bondafide.
The only claim recorded in the judgment was direct race discrimination. The tribunal found that claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written judgment does not set out the tribunal's substantive reasoning, stating instead that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
No monetary remedy was awarded because the claim was dismissed. The written record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant's direct race discrimination claim was not well-founded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but they are not set out in the written judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.