Case 6000552/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Cecilia Canha v Zvc UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000552/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mrs M Metcalf, Mr M Richardson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Cecilia Canha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Southampton before Employment Judge Rayner with Mrs M Metcalf and Mr M Richardson, heard the Claimant's various claims against ZVC UK Ltd over hearings in January and February 2026. The Claimant appeared in person; the Respondent was represented by Ms Berry of Counsel.
The tribunal upheld two aspects of the Claimant's direct sex discrimination claim: that the Respondent failed to give her a fair opportunity to be appointed to the role of lead of the contact centre specialist team in May 2023, and failed to appoint her to the role to which it appointed Mr Khan in October, which the Claimant asserted was a managerial role. Her ordinary unfair dismissal claim also succeeded.
All other claims were dismissed as not well founded, including the remaining direct sex discrimination allegations, race discrimination, harassment relating to sex and/or race, automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure, detriment for making a protected disclosure, wrongful dismissal, victimisation, breach of contract (in respect of a £4,500 referral fee and £200,000 in commission), and unlawful deductions from wages. The matter is to be listed for a remedy hearing in due course.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Upheld in part: the tribunal found the Respondent failed to give the Claimant a fair opportunity to be appointed to the lead of the contact centre specialist team in May 2023, and failed to appoint her to the role given to Mr Khan in October (which the Claimant asserted was a managerial role). All other direct sex discrimination allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment for reasons relating to sex and/or race — not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Covers both the automatic unfair dismissal claim for having made a public interest disclosure and the claim of detriment for having made a protected disclosure — both dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation |
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.