Case 2400949/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Wandji Mboungueng v Utilities Design & Planning Ltd HELD AT: Manchester in person — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400949/2022
- Decision date
- 30 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellor
- Panel members
- D Lancaster, A Booth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Wandji Mboungueng
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Manchester before Employment Judge Mellor, sitting with lay members D Lancaster and A Booth, on 16, 17 and 18 September and 24 October 2024. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal because the claimant accepted that he had been paid notice. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had less than two years' service.
The tribunal found that the remaining claims were not well founded and dismissed them. Those claims were harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination under section 13, detriment because of making a public interest disclosure under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, dismissal because of making a public interest disclosure under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, and unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant accepted he had been paid notice. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records this only as a direct discrimination claim under section 13; the race-discrimination classification is taken from the case listing/context rather than the extracted reasons. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed as not well founded under section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim because of making a public interest disclosure under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissal claim because of making a public interest disclosure under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.