Case 3327954/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Lohman v Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3327954/2019
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Panel members
- Mr Wharton, Mr Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Lohman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Watford in hybrid form on 5 to 9 September 2022 before Employment Judge Maxwell, with Mr Wharton and Mr Scott as lay members. The claimant was represented by counsel, as was the respondent. The judgment records that the claimant's protected disclosure detriment claim and automatic unfair dismissal claim were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal then held that the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also held that the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well-founded and dismissed it. The extracted judgment does not set out further factual findings, legal reasoning, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim; found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments; found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.