Case 3303722/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Voralia v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust R1 Mr Robert Prince R2 — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303722/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr N Boustred, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Voralia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the breach of contract claim, finding that there was no breach of contract and that the termination of employment with effect from 31 January 2024 did not amount to the claimant accepting a repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent.
The tribunal found that the termination did amount to a dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including section 95(2), and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. Complaints seeking contractual or statutory redundancy pay were dismissed on withdrawal, and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed as not well-founded, including the complaint that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 99 ERA.
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination complaints. It found that the indirect sex discrimination complaint failed because the respondent did not have the alleged PCP, and it dismissed all direct sex discrimination and pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints. No remedy phase was required because all complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim failed and was dismissed because there was no breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that any complaints seeking contractual or statutory redundancy pay were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the dismissal reason was redundancy, that it was not automatically unfair because of section 99 ERA, and that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismisses indirect sex discrimination because the respondent did not have the alleged PCP, and dismisses all direct sex discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that all complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(2) ERA
- section 99 ERA
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.