Case 1400443/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Shifeng Wang v University of Portsmouth and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400443/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr J Ruddick, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr Shifeng Wang
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Wang brought race discrimination complaints against the University of Portsmouth and Dr Shanker Prabhu, later amended to include victimisation, together with breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims. The tribunal heard evidence about promotion guidance, relocation expenses, APEX project time, teaching-module allocation, workload, support for Dr Roy's duties, the 31 May 2023 team meeting, a probation letter dated 2 June 2023, and the later end of employment on 3 August 2023.
The tribunal dismissed the race harassment and direct race discrimination claims. It accepted the respondent witnesses' explanations on the individual incidents and found the Claimant had not proved the underlying facts as alleged, or that race played any part in them. In particular, it rejected the suggestion that the promotion advice, relocation-form process, APEX timing, module allocation communications, or the emails about covering Dr Roy's work amounted to treatment because of race.
The victimisation amendment was permitted, but the claim failed. The tribunal held that what Dr Wang said at the 31 May 2023 meeting did not amount to a protected act because it did not expressly or impliedly allege race discrimination. Even if it had, the tribunal found the 2 June 2023 probation letter was motivated by Dr Alkadhimi's concerns about the Claimant's performance, his refusal to assist with Dr Roy's work, and his communications with colleagues, rather than by the Claimant referring to discrimination.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that once employment ended on 3 August 2023 there was no further pay due apart from accrued holiday, and that holiday had been paid. It also held that the Respondent had not proven any fundamental breach by the Claimant.
The breach of contract case was dismissed except for the notice-pay element. The tribunal found that the Respondent had ended employment before the agreed leaving date of 31 August 2023, but had not shown that Dr Wang was in fundamental breach so as to justify ending pay immediately. The tribunal said the successful element appeared to be notice pay for 4 August 2023 to 16 August 2023, but the amount was not determined in this judgment and was left for a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Race harassment limb of the claim. The tribunal found the alleged incidents were not proven to be unwanted conduct related to race or to have the required effect. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination limb of the claim. The tribunal accepted the respondent witnesses' explanations and found no facts from which race discrimination could properly be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The amendment to add victimisation was allowed, but the tribunal found no protected act on 31 May 2023 and in any event held the 2 June 2023 probation letter was not because of any discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed. After termination on 3 August 2023 no further wages were properly payable other than accrued holiday, which was paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Most breach allegations were dismissed, but the notice pay element succeeded because the respondent had not proved fundamental breach. Quantum was left for a later remedy hearing and appeared to cover 4 August 2023 to 16 August 2023. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.136 EqA burden of proof
- Igen v Wong / Ayodele / Madarassy / Efobi
- Shamoon reason-why test
- s.26 EqA harassment
- s.27 EqA victimisation
- Durrani protected act
- s.123 EqA time limits
- Hendricks / Robertson / Afolabi / Keeble
- Selkent amendment test
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.