Case 3322761/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M W Vithana v West London NHS Trust and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3322761/2021
- Decision date
- 4 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs J Hancock, Mr T Poil
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mrs M W Vithana
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge Bansal with lay members Mrs J Hancock and Mr T Poil, gave a unanimous judgment on liability and remedy. The claimant's claims of direct race and sex discrimination, race and sex harassment, detriments for making public interest disclosures and raising health and safety concerns, unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay were not well founded and were dismissed. Claims against the Second and Third Respondents were also dismissed.
The claim of victimisation against the First Respondent (West London NHS Trust) and the Fourth Respondent (Mr Timothy Brackpool) was well founded and succeeded, as did the claim of constructive unfair dismissal against the First Respondent.
On remedy, the First Respondent was ordered to pay £2,132 for constructive unfair dismissal, comprising a Basic Award of £1,632 and £500 for Loss of Statutory Rights. The First and/or Fourth Respondent were ordered to pay £9,227.67 for injury to feelings, comprising £7,500 plus interest of £1,727.67. The Tribunal recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply to these awards.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of sex not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of race not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of sex not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriments suffered for making public interest disclosures and for raising health and safety concerns not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,360
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,632
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.