Case 3201673/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Adegbite v BB Healthcare Solutions Limited — 2025

Case reference: 3201673/2023
Decision date: 17 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brewer
Panel members: Ms A Berry, Ms G McLaughlin

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Adegbite

Respondent

BB Healthcare Solutions Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 15, 16 and 17 January 2025 before Employment Judge Brewer, Ms A Berry and Ms G McLaughlin. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Dr O Ogusanya, solicitor.

The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The unanimous judgment was that the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed, and that the victimisation claim contrary to s.27 of the Equality Act 2010 also failed and was dismissed. No written remedy award was made.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and states that it fails and is dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Victimisation	The judgment describes this as victimization contrary to s.27 of the Equality Act 2010 and states that it fails and is dismissed. No protected characteristic is identified in the written record.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.