Case 1401165/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Ajala v OVO Energy Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401165/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Ajala
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal to be well-founded and held that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The judgment was delivered by Employment Judge Ferguson sitting alone at Bristol Employment Tribunal following a hearing on 14-17 July 2025.
The Tribunal found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, and that it was just and equitable to reduce both the basic award and the compensatory award by one third on account of the claimant's conduct before the dismissal.
The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £3,858 and a compensatory award of £15,565.38, giving a total monetary award of £19,423.38. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were applied, with the prescribed element being £15,565.38 covering the period from 21 December 2023 to 17 July 2025. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in this document.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £3,858 and compensatory award £15,565.38; both reduced by one third for the claimant's blameworthy conduct (contributory fault). Figures stated are the sums payable after deductions. | Upheld | — | £19,423 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,423
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,858
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,565
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.