Case 6002165/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Mathew v Isle of Wight NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002165/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms L Simmonds, Mr I Ley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Mathew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal by video on 14 to 17 January 2025 before Employment Judge Ferguson, with Ms L Simmonds and Mr I Ley as members. The claimant, Ms E Mathew, was represented by Mr T Dracass and the respondent, Isle of Wight NHS Trust, by Mr O Holloway.
The Tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. The same outcome was reached for the complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race, both of which were also found not well-founded and dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record does not include reasons, which were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record does not include reasons, which were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record does not include reasons, which were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.
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.