Case 1800046/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr JA Vashkar v Voyage Care and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800046/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr JA Vashkar
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of direct race discrimination based on colour, national origin or nationality. He withdrew his ordinary unfair dismissal claim because he did not have the required two years' continuous employment, and the tribunal recorded that there was no automatic unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant had been dismissed after taking photographs of a service user and using the service user's device to access the internet. The tribunal recorded that there was no dispute that the claimant took photographs, including of the service user simulating or actually rubbing his genitals, and no dispute that he used the device.
The tribunal considered the claimant's case at its highest. It found that he could not point to a white British employee who had taken similar photographs, or to the respondent knowing of such conduct by others, and that general assertions about racist attitude or disproportionate dismissal were unspecific. Applying the strike-out test, the tribunal concluded that the claim that dismissal was because of race had no reasonable prospect of success and was doomed to fail.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew the ordinary unfair dismissal claim after understanding he did not have two years' continuous employment; the tribunal recorded that there was no automatic unfair dismissal claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the direct race discrimination complaint, based on dismissal, had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13(1)
- Equality Act 2010 s.136(2)
- Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 935
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867
- Laing v Manchester CC IRLR 748
- Birmingham CC v Millwood 2012 EqLR 910
- Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Griffiths-Henry 2006 IRLR 865
- Shamoon v The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union and South Bank University [2001] IRLR 305
- Ahir v British Airways Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.