Case 2402954/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Propeller Pay Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402954/2024
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, described in the issues as being of Pakistani ethnic origin, alleged that the Respondent's termination of his employment amounted to direct race discrimination. The tribunal identified this as the single complaint to be determined after an attempted amendment and the withdrawal of a separate claim against Bury College.
The tribunal was not satisfied that concerns raised about the Claimant were malicious or racist, or that the action taken by Bury College was influenced by his race rather than the nature of the concerns raised. It also found that the Respondent was willing to continue or renew the Claimant's employment once identified training had been completed.
The tribunal concluded that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Respondent was not on the grounds of race. It also rejected the argument that alleged failures in dealing with safeguarding matters provided a basis to infer race discrimination, and dismissed the complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The single complaint permitted to proceed was direct race discrimination based on the Respondent terminating the Claimant's employment. The tribunal held it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- CLFIS (UK) Ltd v Reynolds [2015] EWCA Civ 439
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.