Case 3313343/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G v W Mbuyi Rail Gourmet UK Limited — 2025

Case reference: 3313343/2022
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Isabel Manley
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Mr D Sagar, Dr C Whitehouse

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G

Respondent

W Mbuyi Rail Gourmet UK Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal adjourned the hearing after all evidence had been heard. The case was listed to continue on 6 and 7 October 2025 for submissions, tribunal deliberation and, if possible, judgment, with a French interpreter required.

The judgment amended the list of issues. The remaining issues concerned unfair dismissal, race discrimination, holiday pay and arrears of pay between 25 May 2022 and 27 September 2022.

No liability findings or remedy awards were made in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment records that the hearing was adjourned after evidence and lists unfair dismissal issues for later submissions, deliberation and possible judgment; it does not determine the claim.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment records race discrimination issues concerning a final written warning, alternative employment and termination, including time limit issues; it does not determine the claim.	Other	Race	—
Holiday pay	The amended list of issues asks whether the claimant is entitled to further holiday pay; the judgment does not determine the claim.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The amended list of issues asks whether the claimant is owed arrears of pay between 25 May 2022 and 27 September 2022; the judgment does not determine the claim.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.