Case 1300173/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Ogundiran v Ergea UK & Ireland Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300173/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Ogundiran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend his claim to add claims of direct age discrimination and harassment related to race. The claimant said he was unfamiliar with tribunal procedure, had limited financial resources for legal advice, and considered that allowing the amendments would be in the interests of justice.
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the proposed claims were new, significantly out of time, weak, and would cause evidential and cost difficulties. The tribunal applied the principles on amendments, including Selkent Bus Company v Moore, and balanced the injustice and hardship of allowing or refusing the amendments.
The tribunal refused the application. It found that the proposed claims were new heads of claim, were substantially out of time, had not been raised earlier despite the claimant knowing about the alleged incidents, and would affect the cogency of evidence and increase costs. The claimant's existing pleaded claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal were to continue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add a claim of direct age discrimination. It was not a final determination of the pleaded claims. | Other | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add a claim of harassment related to race. It was not a final determination of the pleaded claims. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore (1996) UKEAT 151
- balance the injustice and hardship of allowing the amendment against the injustice and hardship of refusing it
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.