Case 2202650/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wambu v Badoo Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2202650/2020
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Panel members
- Mr Ian McLaughlin, Mr Richard Pell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wambu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct race discrimination claims brought under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment records that those claims failed, but the extracted text does not give any further reasons for the dismissal.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal, and directed that compensation for unfair dismissal, including both the basic and compensatory award, should be reduced by 45%.
The extracted judgment does not record any monetary figures for the unfair dismissal award after the reduction, so no separate remedy sum can be extracted from this text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's direct race discrimination claims under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim for unfair dismissal succeeded. The judgment further states that the claimant contributed to his dismissal, so compensation for unfair dismissal (basic and compensatory award) should be reduced by 45%. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Equality Act 2010
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.