Case 8001337/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Thorlu-Bangura v UK Health Security Agency — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001337/2025
- Decision date
- 22 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Murphy
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Thorlu-Bangura
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Glasgow by CVP on 21 July 2025, Employment Judge L Murphy recorded that the claimant withdrew her complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and her complaint described as indirect sex or pregnancy discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 during the hearing.
Those complaints were dismissed under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment also states that the claimant's extant complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination were to proceed in accordance with the case management order of the same date. The decision was sent to the parties on 22 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was described as 'ordinary' unfair dismissal under section 94 ERA 1996. It was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing and dismissed under Rule 51. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment described this complaint as 'indirect sex or pregnancy discrimination' under section 19 Equality Act 2010. It was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing and dismissed under Rule 51. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.