Case 3325723/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shaba v Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 3325723/2017
- Decision date
- 14 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs CM Baggs, Ms HT Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Shaba
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application for a postponement and his application to recuse Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto. After the claimant left the hearing following the refusal of postponement, the tribunal proceeded in his absence and relied on the respondent's witness evidence, contemporaneous emails, and bodycam footage.
In claim 3325723/2017, the tribunal held that the direct race discrimination and race harassment complaints arising from events in the Vascular Surgery Department were presented out of time. It found that the relevant time limit had expired before the claim was lodged on 1 August 2017, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
In claim 3334336/2018, the tribunal rejected the allegations arising from the 3 April 2018 hospital security incident, the ban from hospital premises, and the later workplace exchanges with colleagues and managers. It found that the force used by security staff and police was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances, that the access ban would have applied to a comparator in the same position, and that the later complaints about workplace conduct were not proved to be because of race and did not amount to harassment or victimisation.
The holiday pay complaint was also dismissed. The respondent's records showed annual leave owing of £623.12, and the net amount paid to the claimant on 27 June 2017 was £414.70. The tribunal accepted that payment had been made and made no monetary award. All complaints in both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim 3325723/2017. Direct race discrimination complaints were held to be out of time and the tribunal refused to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claim 3325723/2017. Harassment related to race complaints were held to be out of time and the tribunal refused to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim 3334336/2018. Allegations arising from the 3 April 2018 hospital security incident, the ban from hospital premises, and later workplace conduct were dismissed on the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claim 3334336/2018. Harassment related to race allegations were dismissed on the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Claim 3334336/2018. The tribunal found no victimisation; it treated the relevant management action as an ordinary response to workplace issues, not retaliation for a protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was dismissed. The respondent's records showed annual leave owing of £623.12 and a net payment of £414.70 on 27 June 2017. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Presidential Guidance on postponements
- overriding objective
- Porter v Magill real possibility of bias test
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.