Case 6004336/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Paliha Wadane v Third Financial Software Ltd and 4 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004336/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr S Williams, Ms E Flanagan
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mr W Paliha Wadane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded complaints against the respondents of harassment related to race, sexual harassment, harassment related to sex, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation. It found that the time-barred complaints identified in the judgment were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them and they were struck out.
The judgment also states that, even if the tribunal had had jurisdiction to hear the struck-out complaints, they would all have failed. The remaining complaints of direct sex discrimination and victimisation failed.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaints of harassment related to race were presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction and struck them out. The judgment also states they would have failed even if jurisdiction existed. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Complaints of sexual harassment and harassment related to sex were presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction and struck them out. The judgment also states they would have failed even if jurisdiction existed. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Most direct sex discrimination complaints were presented out of time and struck out for lack of jurisdiction, subject to specified exceptions in the list of issues. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The remaining direct sex discrimination complaints failed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Most victimisation complaints were presented out of time and struck out for lack of jurisdiction, subject to specified exceptions in the list of issues. | Struck out | — | — |
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.