Case 3300596/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr M Coltofean (2) Ms M Banasiak (3) Ms E Dos Santos Rocha v Royal Harwich Yacht Club — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300596/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Panel members
- Ms A Buck, Ms A Bray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr M Coltofean (2) Ms M Banasiak (3) Ms E Dos Santos Rocha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants alleged direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal after they were dismissed for gross misconduct involving alleged falsification of time sheets. They said the allegations were manufactured and that there was an accepted unwritten practice allowing claims for hours not worked at the club in the way recorded.
The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimants had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a fair and reasonable investigation and disciplinary process. It found dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, including because the allegations concerned time sheet fraud over a sustained period.
The tribunal also found there was no sufficient evidential basis that the dismissals were motivated by race or nationality. It dismissed the direct race discrimination claims and the unfair dismissal claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claims of direct race discrimination based on nationality. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimants were not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(2)(b)
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)
- ACAS Code
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] I.C.R. 303
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones 1983 ICR 17
- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.136
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.