Case 1401380/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cezary Dobrzynski v Princess Yachts Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401380/2024
- Decision date
- 15 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cezary Dobrzynski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Cezary Dobrzynski's complaints against Princess Yachts Limited of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race, finding that they were not well founded. It also dismissed his victimisation complaints as not well founded.
The tribunal further found that the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was not well founded and dismissed it. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded. The judgment states that reasons were given at the hearing but does not record the tribunal's factual findings or reasoning, and no legal test is identified in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaints of direct race discrimination were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaints of harassment related to race were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaints were found not well founded and dismissed; the written judgment does not identify a protected characteristic for them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.