Case 3205429/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Oldman-Ensa Rogers v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205429/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Members
- Panel members
- Mr C Edwards, Mr J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Oldman-Ensa Rogers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant’s complaints were heard over 8 to 10 November 2023 at the East London Hearing Centre, via CVP, before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting with Mr C Edwards and Mr J Webb.
The tribunal’s operative finding was that all of the claimant’s complaints were not well-founded. The claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
The extracted text does not set out the tribunal’s reasoning on the individual claims or any separate findings on remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The extracted judgment text states only that all complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. The presence of an age discrimination claim is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context, not from the judgment text itself. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment text does not list individual causes of action. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The extracted judgment text states only that all complaints were dismissed. The presence of a sex discrimination claim is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context, not from the judgment text itself. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not identify the claims individually. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.