Case 2501513/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. V. Raghavakurup (AKA Mr. Kurup) v North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501513/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Panel members
- Mrs. S. Donn, Mr. P. Curtis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. V. Raghavakurup (AKA Mr. Kurup)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr V. Raghavakurup's complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation against North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust. It found each complaint was not well founded.
In the alternative, the tribunal held the discrimination complaints were not presented within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also dismissed the complaint that the claimant was subjected to a detriment for making protected disclosures, finding that complaint not well founded.
For the protected-disclosure complaint, the tribunal further held that it had not been presented within the time limit in section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or within such further time as the tribunal considered reasonable. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was found not well founded. The tribunal also held the discrimination complaints were out of time under section 123 Equality Act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was found not well founded. The tribunal also held the discrimination complaints were out of time under section 123 Equality Act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was found not well founded. The tribunal also held the discrimination complaints were out of time under section 123 Equality Act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint that the claimant was subjected to a detriment for making protected disclosures was found not well founded. The tribunal also held the claim was presented out of time under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996, or outside such further time as the tribunal considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.