Case 2500046/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C B Ayogu v Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500046/2023
- Decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Sheila
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Sheila Don, Peter Chapman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C B Ayogu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C B Ayogu brought claims against Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust for direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. The hearing took place at Newcastle Employment Tribunal (sitting in Teesside) on 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October 2023 before Employment Judge Sweeney with lay members Sheila Don and Peter Chapman.
The written judgment records a single outcome: the claims were found not well-founded and were dismissed. No separate findings, liability apportionment, or monetary award are set out in the judgment text provided.
The judgment also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal rules.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claim of harassment related to race was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the victimisation claim was not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.