Case 1309059/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Odiase v World of Books Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309059/2022
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Odiase
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 29 November 2023, Employment Judge Hughes considered whether the claimant's claims should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out because the respondent had overpaid his salary in May 2022 and the only deductions made were to recover that overpayment. The tribunal held that this was not an unauthorised deduction for the purposes of s.13 ERA 1996 because s.14 ERA 1996 applied, and that s.18 ERA 1996 did not apply because the claimant was not a retail worker.
The remaining claims were direct race discrimination and direct sex discrimination. The race complaint concerned alleged exclusion from pizza at work on 3 December 2021 and alleged failures to promote in February and March 2022; the sex complaint concerned the alleged failures to promote in February and March 2022. The tribunal identified core disputes of fact which could not be resolved at the preliminary hearing and held that the claims could not be said to have little reasonable prospect of success, still less no reasonable prospect of success. It therefore refused to strike them out and refused to make a deposit order.
The respondent argued that the discrimination claims were out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and relied on Amies v Inner London Education Authority, while the claimant relied on authorities including Anyanwu, Hendricks, Cast, Malik, Rihal and Tree. The tribunal declined to decide the limitation point or whether time should be extended at this stage, saying those jurisdictional issues were best left to the tribunal hearing the final hearing. The reasons note that the final hearing was listed for 5 to 7 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out as misconceived in law. The tribunal found the respondent had overpaid wages in May 2022 and that the only deductions made were to recover that overpayment, so there was no unauthorised deduction under s.13 ERA 1996; s.14 ERA 1996 applied and s.18 ERA 1996 did not apply because the claimant was not a retail worker. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Not struck out and no deposit order was made. The claim concerned alleged direct race discrimination in relation to exclusion from pizza at work on 3 December 2021 and failure to promote in February and March 2022. The tribunal did not decide the limitation or continuing-act issues at the preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Not struck out and no deposit order was made. The claim concerned alleged direct sex discrimination in relation to failure to promote in February and March 2022. The tribunal left the time-limit and any extension issue to the final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- s.18 ERA 1996
- Rule 37(1)(b)
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Amies v Inner London Education Authority
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Cast v Croydon College
- Malik v Birmingham City Council
- Rihal v London Borough of Ealing
- Tree v South East Coastal Services Ambulance NHS Trust
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.