Case 3201123/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms L. Waiwaiku v North Shoebury Surgery — 2018

Case reference: 3201123/2019
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Massarella
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Mrs G. Forrest, Ms A. Berry

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms L. Waiwaiku

Respondent

North Shoebury Surgery

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Waiwaiku, a practice nurse at North Shoebury Surgery, brought unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation claims. The tribunal held that the pre-November 2018 discrimination, harassment and victimisation allegations were out of time under s.123 EqA and refused to extend time, taking into account her awareness of tribunal rights, the length of delay and the prejudice caused by the passage of time. It found that the messages, task notes and audit activity relied on by the claimant were ordinary clinical and governance communications, not race-related conduct.

The tribunal accepted that the letters of 22 May 2017, 17 September 2018 and 30 November 2018 were protected acts, but found no evidence that later steps were taken because of them. It accepted that Dr Moss sought CCG advice, referred the claimant to the NMC, and that Ms Love suspended her because of genuine concerns about clinical practice, record-keeping, COPD assessment forms and the claimant's refusal to follow instructions. It rejected the allegations that messages had been deleted or fabricated, that patient records had been tampered with, or that Ms Wybrow and Ms Love had made sarcastic or discriminatory comments.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the dismissal process was procedurally unfair: the charges were not properly particularised, there was no separate investigation or report, Ms Love carried both investigatory and disciplinary functions despite the claimant's allegations against her, and the claimant was not properly heard before dismissal on 21 December 2018. However, the tribunal found that a fair process would still have led to dismissal by 21 February 2019, assessed contribution at 60%, and said any basic and compensatory awards would be reduced accordingly. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant's conduct was held to have destroyed trust and confidence, no injury to feelings award was due because the discrimination claims failed, and the judgment left quantum to agreement or a later remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the allegations were not properly particularised, there was no separate investigation or written investigation report, Ms Love carried both investigatory and disciplinary functions despite the claimant's allegations against her, and the claimant was not properly heard before dismissal on 21 December 2018. It also found that, had a fair process been followed, the claimant would still have been fairly dismissed by 21 February 2019, and that any basic and compensatory awards would be reduced by 60% for contribution.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct, viewed objectively, was sufficiently serious to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence and therefore justified summary dismissal without notice.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal held that the pre-November 2018 race discrimination allegations were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The remaining in-time allegations, including the suspension, NMC referral, grievance outcome and dismissal, were found not to have been because of race.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The tribunal found that the conduct relied on was not related to race and, where it occurred, was ordinary clinical management and patient-safety oversight rather than unwanted conduct creating the pleaded environment.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	The tribunal accepted that some of the claimant's complaints amounted to protected acts, but found no causal link between those protected acts and the later treatment. It held that the relevant steps were taken for patient-safety and management reasons, not in response to the claimant's complaints.

Legal tests applied

14 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.