Case 3200254/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kumar v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200254/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Townley Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms Houzer, Mrs Jeary
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr M Kumar's claims against The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust at the East London Hearing Centre from 11 to 14 February 2025. The tribunal sat with Employment Judge L Townley and members Ms Houzer and Mrs Jeary, and recorded that its judgment was unanimous.
The judgment states that the claims for unfair dismissal (constructive), breach of contract (redundancy), and harassment on the grounds of race were not well-founded. Each of those claims was dismissed.
No remedy award or monetary breakdown is recorded in the judgment, because all claims identified in the judgment were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for unfair dismissal (constructive) and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as breach of contract (redundancy) and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment on the grounds of race was not well-founded and dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.