Case 2302224/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Bamgbade v Worley Europe Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING IN PUBLIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302224/2023
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Bamgbade
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public, the tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure and the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. Both were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant's complaints of wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and victimisation were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race remained listed for hearing and were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint remained listed for hearing and was not determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race complaint remained listed for hearing and was not determined in this judgment. | Other |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a)
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.