Case 3302616/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Brianna Chiedozie v London Borough of Ealing and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302616/2023
- Decision date
- 31 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Brianna Chiedozie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and disability discrimination arising from events in 2022. The respondents denied the claims on the merits and did not admit that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with an order to disclose documents relevant to her claim and was not actively pursuing the claim. The claim was struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d), with the Tribunal stating that it would be disproportionate and unjust to the respondents to permit it to proceed further.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant made complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and disability discrimination, and that the claim was struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant made complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and disability discrimination, and that the claim was struck out under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondents did not admit disability under the Equality Act 2010 definition. The claim was struck out before adjudication on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
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.