Case 3303333/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Chu v West London NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303333/2020
- Decision date
- 16 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs S Hockey, Mrs F Tankard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Chu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Reading, chaired by Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto with lay members Mrs S Hockey and Mrs F Tankard, heard Mr Michael Chu's claims against West London NHS Trust on 9-13 August 2021. The written judgment records that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, victimisation and direct discrimination were not well founded.
No written reasons are provided in the record supplied, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and the judgment states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written decision therefore does not set out the factual findings or legal analysis underlying the dismissals.
The outcome recorded in the judgment is that all three complaints were dismissed. No compensation, injury to feelings award, or other monetary remedy is recorded in the written decision provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records a claim of victimisation but does not set out the protected act or underlying reasoning in the written record provided. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a claim of direct discrimination; the case listing identifies disability discrimination, but the written record does not separately restate the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.