Case 3300672/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Boateng v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited and 9 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 3300672/2024
- Decision date
- 19 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Panel members
- Ms S Williams, Mrs J Costley
Parties
11 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal (EJ Wood sitting with Ms S Williams and Mrs J Costley) found that Mr Boateng's ordinary unfair dismissal claim against Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited was well-founded. The respondent failed to satisfy the tribunal that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy; the predominant justification was discriminatory, arising from the claimant and his partner having done protected acts. In the alternative, the dismissal was substantively unfair because the claimant was not adequately warned or consulted, the criteria for placing him in the at-risk pool were not objective or transparent, the interview/scoring system was not fair or transparent, and the respondent did not take adequate steps to find alternative employment. The tribunal characterised the process as predetermined.
Numerous victimisation complaints under the Equality Act 2010 succeeded against the first respondent and individual respondents David Thomas, Paul Eastwood, Michelle Richards, Rory Pearce, Edward Carter, James Storey and Keith Middleton, covering matters from the offer of a settlement agreement and the setting up of what the tribunal described as a sham redundancy consultation and selection process, through the handling of grievance and investigation steps, to the termination of the claimant's employment. The tribunal also upheld several s.112 Equality Act 2010 'aiding' complaints against Michelle Richards in relation to her role in the HR processes used in those victimising acts. All other victimisation and aiding allegations were dismissed.
The complaints of automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, detriment for making a protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996, direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and harassment related to race and to sex were each dismissed. The respondent conceded underpayments of holiday pay, notice pay and car allowance, and these elements together with the overall remedy were adjourned to a separate remedy hearing. The tribunal was satisfied it had jurisdiction, finding the claims brought in time or, in the alternative, that it was just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
13 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ERA 1996 upheld against R1 (Bidvest Noonan). Tribunal found the respondent failed to show redundancy was the principal reason; the predominant justification was discriminatory (the claimant and his partner having done protected acts). In the alternative, the dismissal was substantively unfair: inadequate warning/consultation, non-objective at-risk pool criteria, unfair/non-transparent scoring, and inadequate efforts to find alternative employment. Remedy adjourned to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 (protected disclosures) dismissed, following the tribunal's rejection of the underlying protected disclosure detriment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996 dismissed against all respondents. Tribunal found no evidence the claimant had the public interest in mind; viewed the matter as a private employer/employee dispute. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Numerous victimisation complaints under the Equality Act 2010 succeeded against R1 and individual respondents (R2 Thomas, R3 Eastwood, R4 Richards, R7 Pearce, R8 Carter, R10 Middleton), including offering a settlement agreement, setting up a sham redundancy consultation and selection process, failing to postpone redundancy pending grievance, manipulating selection, not investigating named individuals, moving the claimant to a temporary site, giving notice of dismissal, the bias grievance outcome letter, an unreasonable investigation/outcome letter, and terminating the claimant's employment (R1, R2, R3, R4, R7, R8, R9, R10 found to have caused or contributed). All other victimisation allegations were dismissed. Remedy adjourned. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 112 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(3) Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] ICR 630
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership UKEAT/0137/20/BA
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.