Case 3307551/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307551/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Ms C Baggs, Mr R Jewell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on liability in joined claims by Mr K Nwabueze against Simons Rodkin Solicitors LLP and three individual respondents. The tribunal, sitting at Watford with Employment Judge Hyams and members Ms C Baggs and Mr R Jewell, heard the case across several days in November and December 2025 and February 2026, following five earlier preliminary hearings. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr Michael Magier of counsel.
The tribunal considered claims of detriment for making protected disclosures under s.47B ERA 1996, automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20(3) EqA 2010, harassment under s.26(1) EqA 2010, direct race discrimination under ss.13 and 39(2) EqA 2010, victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010, and a claim under s.38 Employment Act 2002. On the disability claim the tribunal noted that expert evidence of dyslexia and its effect on day-to-day activities was not produced until 30 January 2026, and that the claimant had not identified, at the material time, any specific step the respondents could reasonably have taken. On the s.103A claim the tribunal found the dismissal was not because the claimant had made a protected disclosure.
Unanimously, the tribunal dismissed each of the claims. As no other claim succeeded, the s.38 Employment Act 2002 claim was also dismissed. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Hyams and sent to the parties on 11 February 2026.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996; tribunal found the dismissal was not because the claimant had made a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20(3) EqA 2010, contrary to s.39(5); dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment within the meaning of s.26(1) EqA 2010, contrary to s.40; dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under ss.13 and 39(2) EqA 2010; dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010, contrary to s.39(4); dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim under s.38 Employment Act 2002 (written statement of employment particulars) failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010
- section 39(5) of the Equality Act 2010
- section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010
- section 40 of the Equality Act 2010
- sections 13 and 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010
- section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 39(4) of the Equality Act 2010
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
- sections 1 and 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.