Case 1304753/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms Lundy, HR Manager — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304753/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Dated
- Panel members
- Mrs Fox, Mr Moosa
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Vanga’s claim against Teleperformance UK included a direct race discrimination complaint, a wrongful dismissal claim, an accrued holiday pay issue, and a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal unanimously dismissed the direct race discrimination claim. It also recorded that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it.
The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £277.38 net, described in the judgment as an agreed figure. Separately, and by consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £292.12 for accrued but untaken holiday pay.
The judgment does not set out written reasons, but the operative orders show that the only merits-based success was the wrongful dismissal claim, with the remaining monetary payment for holiday pay made by agreement and the wage deduction claim ending on withdrawal. The total monetary outcome recorded in the orders is £569.50.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim; dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Respondent ordered to pay agreed net damages of £277.38. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Holiday pay | By consent, respondent ordered to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay of £292.12. | Settled | — | £292 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £570
- across all upheld claims
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.