Case 3302680/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Towu v Whitefield School — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302680/2020
- Decision date
- 13 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms H Edwards, Mr D Sutton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Towu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms L Towu’s unfair dismissal claim against Whitefield School was well founded and succeeded. It awarded a basic award of £3,150 in respect of that claim.
It dismissed the direct race discrimination claim and the victimisation claim for lack of jurisdiction. The indirect race discrimination claim was found not well-founded and dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim of unlawful deductions from wages and the breach of contract claim as not well-founded. No compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or interest is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,150 |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deductions from wages aspect as not well-founded; the judgment grouped it with breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract aspect as not well-founded; the judgment grouped it with unlawful deductions from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,150
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,150
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.