Case 3333387/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms B Mkhize v Minster Care Group Limited — 2020

Case reference: 3333387/2018
Decision date: 9 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anstis
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Mrs R A Watts-Davies, Mrs A Gibson

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms B Mkhize

Respondent

Minster Care Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting at Reading before Employment Judge Anstis with Mrs R A Watts-Davies and Mrs A Gibson, found that Ms B Mkhize had been unfairly dismissed by Minster Care Group Limited. The judgment records that no compensation or any other remedy was awarded for the unfair dismissal claim.

The claimant's race discrimination claim in respect of suspension was dismissed on withdrawal, so the tribunal did not determine that allegation on the merits. The judgment also records that the claimant's other claims of race discrimination, including victimisation, were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This 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
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	—
Race discrimination	The race discrimination claim in respect of suspension was dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Race	—
Race discrimination	The claimant's other race discrimination claims, including victimisation, were dismissed.	Dismissed	Race	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £0; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.