Case 3312602/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sundeep Dhiraj v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312602/2022
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Eleanor Deem, Lizzie Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sundeep Dhiraj
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Liz Ord with panel members Eleanor Deem and Lizzie Davies, heard the case at Cambridge by CVP on 7 June 2023 and 5 to 6 October 2023. It dealt with two complaints of racial harassment brought by Mr Sundeep Dhiraj against Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.
The first complaint, concerning “P… Paul”, succeeded. The judgment records that the respondent conceded the claim as to the effect of the conduct, and the tribunal noted that the conduct did not have the purpose of harassing the claimant. The first complaint was therefore upheld.
The second complaint, concerning “Fred”, was dismissed. The tribunal recorded that this complaint of racial harassment was not well founded. No remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | First complaint of racial harassment concerning “P… Paul”; respondent conceded the conduct had the required effect. The judgment records that the conduct did not have the purpose of harassing the claimant. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | Second complaint of racial harassment concerning “Fred” was found not well founded. | 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.
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.