Case 2501963/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Ngwenya v Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501963/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather
- Venue
- Middlesborough Justice Centre
- Panel members
- Mr I Curtis, Mrs B Kirby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Ngwenya
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge Heather with Mr I Curtis and Mrs B Kirby, unanimously found that Ms B Ngwenya’s complaint of direct race discrimination was well-founded and succeeded. It also found that her complaint of harassment related to race was well-founded and succeeded. The extract records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment record.
On remedy, the Tribunal ordered the respondent, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, to pay £7,500 as compensation for injury to feelings. The extracted record does not apportion that sum between the two successful complaints and does not record any additional monetary components.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination was well-founded and succeeded. The written extract does not split the injury to feelings award between the successful claims. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to race was well-founded and succeeded. The written extract does not split the injury to feelings award between the successful claims. | Upheld | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,500
- across all upheld claims
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.