Case 3200689/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v North East London NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200689/2023
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs J Land, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn X v North East London NHS Trust, heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 18, 19, 20 and 21 June 2024 before Employment Judge S Povey with lay members Mrs J Land and Mr M Rowe, the tribunal dealt first with complaints of discrimination concerning events before 31 December 2022. It found those complaints were not presented in time, were not within any period that was just and equitable, and had no reasonable prospects of success, so they were struck out.
The remaining complaints of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation were each found not to be made out and were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons will be provided unless requested; no monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaints of discrimination arising before 31 December 2022 were found to be out of time, outside any just and equitable extension, and to have no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.