Case 1601761/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M A Becker v Kukd.com Ltd (in liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601761/2019
- Decision date
- 28 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Davies Members
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms P Palmer, Ms P Humphreys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M A Becker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff on 10 and 11 June 2021, Employment Judge P Davies sat with Ms P Palmer and Ms P Humphreys. The claimant, Ms M A Becker, appeared in person and the respondent, Kukd.com Ltd (in liquidation), did not participate. In a unanimous judgment, the tribunal found that the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant because of race, harassed her because of race, and victimised her because of race. The judgment records that the victimisation led to detriment and dismissal.
The tribunal awarded compensation in two heads. It awarded £21,342.72 for loss of earnings together with a 15% ACAS uplift of £3,201.40, producing £24,544.12, with interest of £1,570.80. It also awarded £20,000 for injury to feelings together with a 15% ACAS uplift of £3,000, producing £23,000.00, with interest of £2,760.00. The grand total award was £51,874.92. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant because of race. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claimant was harassed because of race. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the claimant was victimised because of race, resulting in detriment and dismissal. | Upheld | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £51,875
- 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.