Case 1308582/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E C Akpovwa v Muller UK and Ireland LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308582/2023
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms Stewart, Mr McIntosh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E C Akpovwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct race discrimination, race related harassment and victimisation. It considered the alleged allocation of vehicles, workplace incidents, investigations, retraining, grievance handling, dismissal and pay matters, and found either that the alleged conduct was not established as pleaded or that the evidence did not support a link to race or to protected acts.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanations for the probationary process and the decision not to confirm the claimant's employment, including concerns arising from events in July 2023. It was satisfied that the dismissal was not because of race and was not because of the claimant's grievances.
For the protected disclosure detriment complaint, the tribunal found that the January 2023 and July 2023 grievances disclosed information, but that the claimant did not believe the disclosures were made in the public interest or that they tended to show the pleaded categories of wrongdoing at the time. The alleged disclosures therefore were not protected disclosures, and the complaint was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of race related harassment was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The Equality Act victimisation complaint was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment complaint under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- ss 13, 26 and 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] ICR 731 CA
- Korashi v Abertawe Local Health Board [2012] IRLR 4 EAT
- Anya v University of Oxford & Another [2001] IRLR 377
- Igen v Wong and Others [2005] IRLR 258
- Madarrassy v Nomura International Ltd [2007] ICR 867
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48
- Bahl v Law Society [2003] IRLR 640
- Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] IRLR 884
- Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] IRLR 298
- Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire [2024] EAT 169
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.