Case 3315311/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ahwere-Bafo v Royal Holloway and New Bedford College — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315311/2020
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs C Baggs, Mrs A Gibson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ahwere-Bafo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Reading on 24 to 31 October and 1 November 2022 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, with members Mrs C Baggs and Mrs A Gibson. The claimant was Mr J Ahwere-Bafo and the respondent was Royal Holloway and New Bedford College.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate remedy was recorded in the written extract, and no monetary award is stated.
The note to the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The extract therefore contains the outcome but not the tribunal's detailed reasoning on liability.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to the claim as direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses harassment as one of the claimant's claims; the extract does not further specify the protected characteristic, but the case is listed as race discrimination and the discrimination claim is treated as race-related. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment dismisses victimisation as one of the claimant's claims; the extract does not further specify the protected characteristic, but the case is listed as race discrimination and the discrimination claim is treated as race-related. | 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.