Case 3400400/2016 · Employment Tribunal

Ms SR Idu v The Ipswich Hospitals NHS Trust — 2017

Case reference: 3400400/2016
Decision date: 18 August 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Panel members: Ms L Daniels, Ms M Lee

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms SR Idu

Respondent

The Ipswich Hospitals NHS Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought claims of ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for protected disclosures, direct sex discrimination, indirect race discrimination, wrongful dismissal or breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal found that some pleaded disclosures were protected, but that the protected disclosures were not causally related to the detriments alleged or to the dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that conduct was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It found that the respondent was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before it, that the claimant's conduct cumulatively amounted to misconduct, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It also accepted that the disciplinary panel was entitled to conclude in the alternative that the employment relationship had broken down in a way that made continued employment untenable.

The sex discrimination, indirect race discrimination, protected disclosure detriment, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages claims were all dismissed. On the contract claim, the tribunal held that the claimant had committed a repudiatory breach and that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss her without notice pay.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed, either for making protected disclosures or at all.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal held that the respondent did not subject the claimant to detriment on the ground that she had made protected disclosures, and that protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal held that the respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against the claimant because of her sex.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Race discrimination	The pleaded indirect race discrimination claim related to the claimant's nationality and the tone of her communications; the tribunal held that the respondent did not unlawfully indirectly discriminate against her.	Dismissed	Race	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was guilty of repudiatory breach of contract and that the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily, so the wrongful dismissal and notice pay claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held that the respondent did not make unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages.

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.

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.