Case 3302630/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Onugha v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302630/2020
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Members
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Mr M Kaltz
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Onugha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the race discrimination allegations. It found that the claimant, who identifies as British Nigerian, had relied on a series of management interactions and contract-related events involving Ms Howell and others, but had not shown facts linking those matters to race. The tribunal accepted that the respondent made mistakes about the written terms of the claimant's appointment and that some aspects of management could be criticised, but found managerial or practical explanations unrelated to race for the matters complained of.
The tribunal found that the claimant was ultimately employed on a six-month fixed term contract and that the end of employment was explained by the fixed term expiring, the absence of an imminent restructure post, genuine performance concerns identified by Ms Howell, and the claimant's resignation. It found that race played no part in the procedure for notice, the decision to dismiss, or the respondent's handling of the occupational health and probation-related matters. The victimisation allegation also failed.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant accepted the respondent could deduct for three days of excess holiday. The travel expenses claim failed because the claimant had not submitted claims under the applicable procedure. The overtime claim failed because she had not proved a contractual right to payment for overtime, and in any event could not prove the specific hours or days worked beyond an estimate.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations, including alleged less favourable treatment and race being a factor in termination, failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation allegation connected with issue 11.10 and the end of employment failed; the tribunal found no evidence that discrimination or race tainted the relevant decision-making. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant accepted the respondent was entitled to deduct three days' excess holiday pay from final pay and stated she did not pursue the claim; it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The travel expenses claim was treated as a breach of contract claim and failed because there was no evidence that the claimant submitted claims in accordance with the contractual procedure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The overtime/excess hours claim failed because the claimant did not show a contractual entitlement to be paid overtime and could not prove the days, hours or periods allegedly worked. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act section 27(3)
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.