Mr J Katkoria v Stena Drilling PTE Ltd and 68 others — 2026

Mr J Katkoria's race discrimination claims against Stena Drilling PTE Ltd were dismissed. They concerned his redundancy dismissal and the failure to appoint him to a permanent Pool Crew Barge Engineer role or an onshore Marine Superintendent role. He worked as a Barge Engineer from 21 June 2023 to 21 August 2024. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation following the decision to scrap the Stena Spey, with the selection pool comprising employees assigned to that vessel.

The tribunal rejected Mr Katkoria's contention that he had already been permanently appointed to the Pool Crew. His deployment across the fleet was temporary, and Mr Flynn's email of 8 May 2024 did not guarantee that his job was safe. Mr Katkoria's subsequent emails to payroll stated that he remained assigned to the Spey and was not part of the Pool Crew. The tribunal accepted Ms Boston's evidence that she had sought confirmation of his interest in the vacancy and had no authority to offer it. It nevertheless found that the respondent should have clarified his position more clearly.

At his consultation meeting, Mr Katkoria had explained that caring responsibilities could prevent him from mobilising at short notice and that he preferred a fixed rota. He approved the meeting minutes. Mr Flynn relied on these concerns when selecting Mr Shepherd for the Pool Crew vacancy. Mr Shepherd had obtained his Chief Mate's certificate by the end of July 2024 but did not yet hold DPO certification. The tribunal considered his considerably greater drilling experience, longer service and apparent enthusiasm for the role relevant to the comparison between the candidates.

The judge had reservations about whether all the circumstances surrounding Mr Shepherd's retention had been explained and whether the mobilisation issues had carried as much weight when they occurred as they did later. The judge also considered that Mr Flynn had downplayed the importance of DPO certification. There were no formal records of the assessment of the competing applications. Despite the importance attached to short-notice availability, Mr Shepherd's interview notes did not record direct questions about commitments that might affect his ability to mobilise.

The Marine Superintendent complaint failed because Mr Katkoria withdrew his application after learning that accommodation costs would not be paid. The tribunal accepted that permanent onshore postholders did not receive those payments, including the successful applicant. Mr McLuckie's interim appointment involved his specialist experience as a tow master, which Mr Katkoria did not share. The tribunal also found that Mr Katkoria lacked the drilling experience of the permanent postholder. It found nothing in these arrangements from which race discrimination could be inferred.

Applying the two-stage burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found insufficient primary facts to shift the burden to the respondent. It relied on Bahl v Law Society for the principle that unreasonable treatment alone does not establish discrimination, and on the comparator principles in Advocate General for Scotland v MacDonald when considering the candidates' relevant differences. The claimant's concerns about the process and the apparent unfairness of the appointment decision were insufficient to establish race discrimination. No unfair dismissal claim was before the tribunal, and the judgment records no monetary award.