Case 1800798/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Duruiheoma v Dovecote Park Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800798/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs J Maughan, Mrs S Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Duruiheoma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the respondent's written application for costs, the claimant's written objections, and the papers in chambers between 19 August and 15 October 2019. It dismissed the application. Employment Judge JM Wade recorded that, for the reasons set out in the claimant's objections, the claimant's belief that his dismissal was influenced by race was not unreasonable and that he was reasonably entitled to a trial of the issue.
The judge also held that the claimant had not acted "otherwise unreasonably" in continuing the case after an Employment Judge at case management stage had formed the view that it was not a case of "little reasonable prospects of success". A subsequent without prejudice save as to costs letter did not alter that position. The judgment further states that evidence had been put forward for the claimant's belief, although that was not accepted by the Tribunal. The respondent's costs application was therefore dismissed and no costs award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determines only the respondent's application for costs. The application was dismissed; the judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the dispute. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- otherwise unreasonably
- little reasonable prospects of success
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.