Case 1306628/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs O Shobajo Abimbola For the v Miss Onwochei-Garcia (solicitor) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306628/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs O Shobajo Abimbola For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Perry on 25 March 2025, the tribunal amended the respondent’s name by agreement. It held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal and notice pay complaints were presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time and, in any event, they were not presented within a further reasonable period, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and those complaints were dismissed.
The claimant confirmed that no further discrimination complaints were being pursued beyond a complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments. That disability discrimination complaint was also out of time. The tribunal declined to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so, and the discrimination complaints were dismissed.
The claimant’s holiday pay complaint was conceded to be in time. On the documents before it, the tribunal indicated that the claimant was due 148.15 hours’ holiday pay at £10.75 per hour, totalling £1,592.61, based on the maxtime statement dated 21 February 2024 and the payslip dated 10 May 2024. The tribunal noted that no holiday pay was paid on the April 2024 payslip and that the March 2024 payslip was not before it. By agreement, judgment was to be entered for the claimant for £1,592.61 if no objection was made within 14 days, and the matter was to be referred back after 35 days for a decision on the papers.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and, in any event, it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was also presented out of time, with the tribunal finding it had no jurisdiction to hear it because it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant confirmed that no further discrimination complaints were being pursued beyond the reasonable adjustments complaint. That complaint was presented out of time, and the tribunal refused to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was conceded to be in time. On the documents before the tribunal, the claimant was due 148.15 hours at £10.75 per hour, totalling £1,592.61, based on the maxtime statement dated 21 February 2024 and the payslip dated 10 May 2024. No holiday pay was shown on the April 2024 payslip, and the March 2024 payslip was not before the tribunal. The parties agreed that judgment would be entered for the claimant for £1,592.61 absent objection. | Upheld | — | £1,593 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,593
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend time
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.