Case 6004594/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Kizamba v Marshall Motor Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004594/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Kizamba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. It also dismissed the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints of harassment related to race, direct race discrimination, and unauthorised deductions or breach of contract in respect of an £800 bonus. Separate complaints about unauthorised deductions from wages between December 2023 and April 2024 and holiday pay due on termination were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant on 8 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions/breach of contract in respect of a bonus of £800 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of unauthorised deductions/breach of contract in respect of a bonus of £800 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
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.