Case 3200087/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Akande v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200087/2022
- Decision date
- 14 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Akande
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined preliminary issues arising from the Claimant's reliance on an audio recording and transcript of private disciplinary panel deliberations on 11 November 2022. The Respondent was permitted to withdraw a partial concession in its Grounds of Resistance about admissibility of sections of the recording.
The Tribunal held that the recording and transcript of the disciplinary panel's private deliberations were admissible in principle, despite being recorded without the panel members' knowledge during adjournments. However, the red-highlighted sections of the transcript were found to be covered by legal advice privilege and inadmissible.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the Claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, or victimisation, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the underlying claims include direct race discrimination, but this preliminary judgment did not determine the merits or remedy. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the underlying claims include harassment related to race, but this preliminary judgment did not determine the merits or remedy. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the underlying claims include victimisation, but this preliminary judgment did not determine the merits or remedy. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 1(3)(b)(ii) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- legal advice privilege
- iniquity exception
- Andrews v Argent (Property Development) Services LLP
- Curless v Shell International Ltd
- The Abbeyfield (Maidenhead) Society v Hart
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.