Case 2307066/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Beresford Walker v Wincanton Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307066/2023
- Decision date
- 16 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby
- Panel members
- Dr S Chacko, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Beresford Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge Lumby with Dr S Chacko and Mr R Singh, found that Mr Beresford Walker’s ordinary unfair dismissal complaint against Wincanton Group Limited was well founded and that he had been unfairly dismissed. It also found the wrongful dismissal complaint well founded and held that he was entitled to a payment in respect of notice. The separate complaint of automatic unfair dismissal, described in the written judgment as being for making a protected disclosure or because of race, was dismissed, as were the direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation complaints.
On remedy, the tribunal did not fix a monetary award in this judgment. It found that there was a 50% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It also found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, so that any compensatory award should be increased by 10% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal further found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, so any compensatory award should be reduced by 10%.
A separate hearing was to be arranged to determine remedy for the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims if the parties did not reach agreement first. No monetary figure was recorded in the published judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded. The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, found there was a 50% chance he would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and said any compensatory award would be increased by 10% for ACAS Code non-compliance and reduced by 10% for contributory conduct. Remedy was to be determined separately if not agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of wrongful dismissal was found well-founded. The tribunal held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to a payment in respect of notice, but no figure was fixed in this record. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint linked to making a protected disclosure. The written judgment also grouped a race reason in the same sentence under this heading, but no separate award or further particulars were given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.