Case 3204778/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Oseghale v Cygnet Learning Disability Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3204778/2022
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Ms J Houzer, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Oseghale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a registered mental health nurse, was employed by the respondent from March 2020 and was dismissed in 2022 following disciplinary proceedings. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims well-founded, but dismissed both direct race discrimination claims. Earlier whistleblowing claims had been struck out for non-payment of a deposit order, and a holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
On the discrimination claims, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not produced evidence from which it could infer that any difference in treatment as between him and named comparators was on grounds of race; the assertions were described as speculative. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the decision-making of Mr Gutu in upholding a more serious allegation to be flawed, but applied a 40% Polkey reduction under Polkey v Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142 to reflect the chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and a 60% reduction to both the basic and compensatory awards for contributory fault under s.122(2) and s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996.
On remedy, the tribunal calculated net weekly pay of £619.98, awarded two weeks' notice pay of £1,239.96 for wrongful dismissal, a basic award of £685.20 (after reduction) and a compensatory award of £716.10 (loss of earnings equivalent to statutory sick pay of £2,483.75 for 25 weeks plus £500 for loss of statutory rights, reduced by the Polkey and contributory fault deductions). The total sum ordered to be paid was £2,641.26.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim well-founded. Basic award of £685.20 and compensatory award of £716.10 awarded after a 40% Polkey reduction and 60% contributory fault reduction under s.122(2) and s.123(6) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,401 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claimant entitled to two weeks' statutory notice at net weekly pay of £619.98. | Upheld | — | £1,240 |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim concerning the appointment of Rebecca Patchett to a substantive role in June 2021. Dismissed. The tribunal also noted a jurisdictional time issue raised by the respondent in respect of this allegation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim concerning the dismissal. Dismissed; tribunal found no evidence from which it could infer that any difference in treatment between the claimant and named comparators was due to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | Resolved between the parties following the preliminary hearing and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claims. At a preliminary hearing on 13 February 2022, Acting Regional Employment Judge Burgher concluded the whistleblowing claims had little reasonable prospects of success and made deposit orders. The claimant did not pay the deposit, so the claims were struck out. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,641
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £685
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £716
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey v Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.