Case 2218521/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Kabati v Ward Security Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2218521/2024
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Kabati
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W Kabati’s claims against Ward Security Ltd were heard at the London Central Employment Tribunal on 5 to 7 July 2025 before Employment Judge Nash. The extracted judgment records two Equality Act claims: direct discrimination by dismissal under section 13 and harassment under section 26.
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant by dismissing him, and that it did not unlawfully harass him. The extracted text gives only those conclusions and does not record any remedy, liability split, or award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The extracted judgment does not name the protected characteristic in the dispositive text, but the case listing is categorised as race discrimination. The tribunal held that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant by dismissing him contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The extracted judgment does not name the protected characteristic in the dispositive text, but the case listing is categorised as race discrimination. The tribunal held that the respondent did not unlawfully harass the claimant contrary to section 26 Equality Act. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act
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.