Case 3311584/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Basham v NHS Blood & Transplant — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311584/2021
- Decision date
- 23 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Bean, Mr Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Basham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Basham brought race discrimination complaints against NHS Blood and Transplant. The tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge Quill with Mr Bean and Mr Scott, considered the complaints listed in the issues document and divided them into two groups by limitation.
The complaints identified in items 2.1.15 and 2.1.16 were found to be in time, but the tribunal rejected them on their merits and dismissed them. The complaints identified in items 2.1.01 to 2.1.14 were found to be out of time; the tribunal did not extend time, so those complaints were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. As a result, all of the claims failed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaints identified in items 2.1.15 and 2.1.16 were in time but failed on the merits and were dismissed. The complaints identified in items 2.1.01 to 2.1.14 were out of time, the tribunal did not extend time, and those complaints were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.