Case 2408753/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Wanyoike v Faith in Nature Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408753/2022
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Ms V Worthington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Wanyoike
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr E Wanyoike, brought complaints against Faith in Nature Limited of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. The final hearing was held in person at Manchester Employment Tribunal from 7 to 11 October 2024 before Employment Judge McDonald sitting with Mr A Egerton and Ms V Worthington. Earlier complaints of sex discrimination and unpaid holiday pay had previously been withdrawn and dismissed by a judgment dated 29 March 2023.
During the hearing the claimant withdrew allegations 4.1.6, 5.3.6 and 5.3.7 (relating to the conduct of supervisor Maciej on 29 July 2022 and the characterisation of the dismissal as direct race discrimination), which the Tribunal dismissed on withdrawal. The Tribunal also refused two applications by the claimant to amend his claim, including an application to add further allegations relating to incidents in 2020-2021 and an application to add further deduction claims for June/July 2022; in each case the Tribunal applied the Selkent balance of hardship and injustice test and the guidance in Vaughan v Modality Partnership.
All remaining complaints failed and were dismissed. The remaining complaints of direct race discrimination and race-related harassment, the victimisation complaint under s.27 of the Equality Act 2010, the unfair dismissal complaint, the unauthorised deductions complaint (concerning a £250 deduction in June 2021) and the breach of contract complaint were each dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegations 4.1.6, 5.3.6 and 5.3.7 (direct race discrimination and race-related harassment) were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. All other complaints of direct race discrimination failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | All complaints of harassment related to race failed and were dismissed (other than those dismissed on withdrawal). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation in breach of s.27 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages (relating to a £250 deduction in June 2021 from overtime in the period February to August 2021) failed and was dismissed. The claimant's application to amend to add further deduction allegations for June/July 2022 was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract (alleged unpaid overtime, February to August 2021) failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership UKEAT/0147/20/BA
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.