Case 3201431/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wanjau v XPO Bulk UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201431/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr H Launder, Mr K Ghotbi-Ravandi
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wanjau
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found that the Claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, and reduced both the compensatory award and the basic award by 75%.
The Tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination complaint relating to a load and tip assessment in July 2022 because it was brought out of time and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The other direct race discrimination complaints were found not well-founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and awards a basic award of £723.38 and a compensatory award of £395.68 after 75% reductions. | Upheld | — | £1,119 |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaint relating to a load and tip assessment in July 2022 was dismissed as out of time and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The other direct race discrimination complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,119
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £723
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £396
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.