Claimant v Kuda Technologies Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant failed to meet initial burden of proof. No evidence of a culture of hostility towards women at R1. Claimant was the highest paid employee and a senior executive. All factual allegations either failed or were found to have non-discriminatory explanations. Tribunal found respondent witnesses credible and their evidence consistent with contemporaneous documents.
Tribunal found most allegations failed on the facts. Where conduct occurred, it was not found to be related to sex or to meet the dignity/environment requirement under s.26 EqA. Tribunal emphasised tribunals must not cheapen the significance of harassment provisions by catching trivial acts causing minor upsets.
Tribunal accepted claimant made protected acts (grievances dated 15 December 2023 and 10 April 2024). However, all allegations of detrimental treatment either failed on the facts or were found not to be caused by the protected acts. Tribunal found delays and failures in grievance process were due to claimant's resignation and non-engagement, not victimisation.
Primary case (based on discrimination/harassment/victimisation) failed because underlying EqA claims failed. Alternative case (based on four specific allegations) failed: decision to make CPO role redundant was genuine and based on financial pressures from Naira devaluation, not a sham. R1 had reasonable and proper cause for its conduct. None of the acts were calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.
Claim was contingent on constructive dismissal being established. As no constructive dismissal found, wrongful dismissal claim failed. Claimant resigned on 27 April 2024 and was not dismissed.
Allegation concerned one-day delay in salary payment (paid 26 April instead of 25 April 2024). Tribunal found claimant not contractually entitled to be paid on 25th of each month. One-day delay was due to need to recalculate pay following reduction to SSP and did not amount to unlawful deduction.
Withdrawn by claimant at start of hearing.
Facts
Claimant was Chief People Officer at fintech start-up from August 2021 earning £173,340, the highest paid employee. She disputed her stock option strike price, arguing she was entitled to Series A pricing ($57.74) instead of Series B pricing ($183.53) granted in her April 2022 option agreement. Following Naira devaluation causing severe financial pressures, respondent decided in February 2024 to make her CPO role redundant. Claimant was signed off sick from March 2024 and raised grievance alleging sex discrimination on 10 April 2024. She resigned on 27 April 2024 claiming constructive dismissal.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Found claimant's evidence unreliable, evasive and inconsistent with contemporaneous documents. Accepted respondents' evidence that redundancy was genuine, driven by currency devaluation making UK costs prohibitive. No evidence of sex discrimination or 'boys club' culture. Claimant failed to meet initial burden of proof on all EqA claims. No breach of trust and confidence found - respondent had reasonable and proper cause for all challenged conduct.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants pursuing multiple discrimination claims must present credible evidence meeting the initial burden of proof; mere assertions of discriminatory culture without documentary support or credible witness corroboration will fail, particularly where contemporaneous documents contradict the claimant's account and respondent provides legitimate business reasons for challenged decisions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2223288/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Group Chief People Officer (CPO)
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No