Case 2301476/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hossein Khansari v Platipus Anchors Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301476/2022
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Panel members
- Ms B Leverton, Mr P Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hossein Khansari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Khansari worked as the Respondent's Regional Sales Manager from March 2019 until his summary dismissal on 4 January 2022. The tribunal considered claims of unfair dismissal, harassment related to race, and direct race discrimination. It found the direct race discrimination claim failed, but upheld the harassment claim in part on the basis that Messrs Curnick and Richardson sometimes mimicked an Indian accent.
The tribunal rejected the pleaded race-related allegations about project allocation, written warnings copied to others, the removal of the LFAS project, suspension, refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing, the alleged 'brown dogs' and 'hot curry' remarks, and the use of Afrikaans in the office. It found that the 'brown dogs' and 'hot curry' phrases were not proved. It accepted that accent mimicking had occurred, held that it was unwanted and related to race, and concluded that it had the effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment. Although the latest possible incident was before 31 December 2021, time was extended by 25 days as just and equitable.
On unfair dismissal, the Respondent conceded procedural unfairness. The tribunal held that if a fair capability process had been followed, dismissal would still have occurred by early March 2022, limiting loss of earnings to 15 weeks. It found the Claimant contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 50%, relying on findings that he took files, failed to follow reasonable instructions about the BDP and the 'creep' issue, and contributed to a tense working atmosphere. It applied a 20% ACAS uplift. Remedy was not quantified in the judgment and was listed for a hearing on 2 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent conceded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The tribunal held that a fair capability process would still have led to dismissal by early March 2022, found contributory fault at 50%, and applied a 20% ACAS uplift, but left quantum to a remedy hearing listed for 2 December 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Uphold was limited to the incidents where Messrs Curnick and Richardson were found to have mimicked an Indian accent. The tribunal rejected the other pleaded race-related incidents, extended time by 25 days on the just and equitable basis, and left injury to feelings to the remedy hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal found no prima facie case that the suspension, dismissal, project decisions, warnings, and other alleged treatment were because of race. It accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations based on performance, conduct, and workplace relations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Jagex Ltd v McCambridge
- Britool Ltd v Roberts
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- s.123(1)(b) 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.