Mr T Makinde v Amazing Angels Care Limited — 2026

The claimant was employed as a care worker from 17 May 2023 under a contract and certificate of sponsorship referring to 39 hours per week and an annual salary of £20,480. The respondent did not present a response or evidence. At an earlier case management hearing the claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal complaint because he did not have two years' service. At the final hearing he pursued direct race and sex discrimination, harassment related to race and sex, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's unchallenged evidence that he was not allocated his full 39 contracted hours in several months between May 2023 and September 2024. It found that he had not been paid his contractual wages for November and December 2023, January, February and March 2024, and for shortfalls or non-payment between April and September 2024. It disallowed the May 2023 claim and the July 2023 claim. The tribunal awarded £7,783.86 for unpaid wages from May 2023 to March 2024 and £6,957.17 from April to September 2024, totalling £14,741.03. It found the respondent was in breach of contract but dealt with the loss as an unauthorised deductions from wages award.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal found that the claimant, who described his race as black African, Nigerian, had shown facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that colleagues from Zimbabwe on the same sponsorship contracts, Melvin and Hilda, were allocated 39 hours per week, while the claimant was not. It also found that the claimant was dismissed around 22 June 2024 and re-employed on 1 July 2024, excluded from shifts in June 2024, removed from and later returned to the WhatsApp group, not provided his contracted hours, and that the respondent failed to comply with sponsorship requirements by not providing those hours. Because the respondent gave no evidence, it did not discharge the burden of proving that the treatment was in no sense because of race, so direct race discrimination succeeded.

The direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Neliet Sellars said the claimant did not like taking orders from a woman, but it did not find the alleged gaslighting point made out and noted that the claimant's own evidence was that both Melvin, a male colleague, and Hilda, a female colleague, routinely received 39 hours. It concluded there were insufficient facts from which it could decide, without any other explanation, that the respondent directly discriminated because of sex. The harassment claims based on Hilda contacting the claimant on 4 October 2024 and asking him to withdraw his claim also failed, because the tribunal was not satisfied the conduct was related to sex or race.

For race discrimination remedy, the tribunal held that past loss of earnings was covered by the unpaid wages award and that there was no future loss because the claimant secured a new role from 21 October 2024 at a higher salary. It awarded £3,000 for injury to feelings, placing the case at the lower end of the lower Vento band, and £529.97 interest. The total award recorded was £18,271.00.