Case 6011779/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Wabwire v Stepping Stones Resettlement Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011779/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Wabwire
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 February 2026 before Employment Judge Livesey, the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaints of unlawful deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal. No merits findings were made on those claims in this judgment, and no monetary award was recorded.
The claimant’s complaint of discrimination on the grounds of race, arising from the alleged incident of 14 September 2023, was struck out under rule 38(1)(a), (b) and/or (c). The reasons for strike-out were said to be those set out in the Case Summary of the same date, which is not reproduced in this short judgment.
The order also states that the remaining claims were to proceed in accordance with the Order and Case Summary of even date. This judgment therefore disposes only of the withdrawal and strike-out issues and does not determine the remaining claims on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the complaint of unpaid holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of race discrimination in respect of the alleged incident of 14 September 2023 was struck out under rule 38(1)(a), (b) and/or (c) for the reasons set out in the Case Summary of even date. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(a), (b) and/or (c)
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.