Case 3300402/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Asigo (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300402/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms B Asigo (solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Watford on 25 September 2019 before Employment Judge Wyeth, the claimant, Ms M Rabiu, and the respondent, Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, were represented by Ms B Asigo and Mr S Sudra respectively. The judgment records that the claimant's specific complaints of disability discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under s103C Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the remaining claims continued. No merits findings, liability findings, or remedy assessment are recorded in this judgment for those remaining claims, and no monetary award is set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's specific complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant's specific complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under s103C Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s103C 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.