Case 3300530/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B. Sanneh v Reading Transport Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300530/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Miss S. Hughes, Mrs A. Brosnan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B. Sanneh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16 June 2021, Employment Judge Chudleigh, sitting with Miss S. Hughes and Mrs A. Brosnan at Reading by Cloud Video Platform, dismissed the claimant's complaint of direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that complaint was not well founded.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. The judgment records a further dismissal complaint as 'wrongly dismissal'; this is taken to mean wrongful dismissal, and that claim was also dismissed as not well founded.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was separately rejected as not well founded and dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of direct race discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent, and the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment reads 'wrongly dismissal'; this has been treated as a wrongful dismissal claim. It was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant's holiday pay claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.