Case 3304203/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Sandher v The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

Case reference: 3304203/2022
Decision date: 23 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bansal Members
Panel members: Mr A Scott, Mr L Hoey

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Sandher

Respondent

The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal, sitting at Watford by CVP on 3, 4 and 5 July 2024 before Employment Judge Bansal with members Mr A Scott and Mr L Hoey, unanimously dismissed all three claims brought by Mr J Sandher against Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The claims were for direct discrimination on grounds of race under s13 Equality Act 2010, harassment related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010, and failure to make reasonable adjustments due to disability under ss19 and 20 Equality Act 2010.

Each complaint was found not well founded and was dismissed. The judgment records no liability findings in the claimant's favour and no monetary award. Written reasons were not provided in the record unless requested separately within 14 days of the sending of the decision.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The harassment complaint was expressed as harassment related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Race	—
Disability discrimination	The claim was pleaded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments due to disability under ss19 and 20 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.