Case 2305600/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Amponsah v Vinci Construction UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305600/2021
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Ms E Thompson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Amponsah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Helpdesk Administrator from 19 July 2021, after an earlier period as an agency worker, and was dismissed on 12 October 2021. The Tribunal found that his contract provided for a three-month probationary period from 19 July 2021, so he was still in probation when dismissed.
The Tribunal rejected the alleged protected disclosures. It found that the 8 September 2021 text lacked sufficient factual content and specificity, the 9 September 2021 email did not involve a reasonable belief that the matters alleged tended to show a criminal offence or legal breach, and the alleged verbal corruption disclosure to Mr Coster was not made. It also found that, even if any disclosure had been protected, the claimant had not proved that it was the sole or principal reason for dismissal.
The Tribunal dismissed the race discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints. It found the claimant had not shown primary facts supporting an inference that race played any part in the dismissal or the pleaded matters. It rejected the alleged 28 September 2021 incident and other alleged joking about dismissal, and found Mr Coster's response to the claimant's 4 October 2021 message was sympathetic rather than detrimental.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant was contractually entitled to one week's notice during probation and it was common ground that he received one week's pay in lieu of notice. As all complaints were dismissed, remedy did not arise.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA was dismissed; the Tribunal found none of the alleged disclosures were protected disclosures and, in any event, the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not the alleged disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was dismissed; the Tribunal found no primary facts from which it could conclude that dismissal or the pleaded matters were because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was dismissed; the Tribunal rejected the factual allegation relied on for this complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was dismissed; the respondent conceded the protected acts, but the Tribunal found the pleaded detriments either did not happen or, for dismissal, were not because of the protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal, pleaded as breach of contract in respect of notice pay, was dismissed; the Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed within his probationary period and had received the one week's notice pay due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Brown UKEAT/0044/19/OO
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55
- Maund v Penwith DC [1984] IRLR 129
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 23 Equality Act 2010
- Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v Bailey [2017] EWCA Civ 425
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong Ltd [2005] ICR 931
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] ICR 867
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 18
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell 1888 39 ChD 339
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.