Case 2202263/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202263/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 6 October 2022, Employment Judge Brown dealt with the respondent's strike-out/deposit application and the claimant's application to amend his case. Mr Babatunde Esan had presented claims on 3 May 2022 for unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, and pay-related complaints, then served particulars on 22 June 2022 and sought further amendment after his dismissal appeal was rejected on 14 June 2022. The tribunal found that the dismissal letter took effect on 1 February 2022 and that the claimant understood that to be the dismissal date when he brought his claim.
Applying Selkent Bus Company v Moore, the tribunal held that the new discrimination allegations were substantial amendments, but allowed them because they were advanced as part of a continuing act and were, on the tribunal's analysis, in time for amendment purposes. The tribunal treated the appeal outcome as the most recent event relied on and accepted that the claimant had waited for the internal appeal to conclude before particularising his complaints. It also held that the amended material did not amount to an abuse of process or an attempt to circumvent time limits.
The tribunal therefore granted permission to amend the claim so that it could include the June 2022 particulars and the added complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the appeal stage. It also held that the new particulars were, in substance, additional detail for the existing unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996. The respondent's application for strike out or a deposit order was refused because, once amended, the claims could be understood and responded to. No liability or compensation issues were decided at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Interlocutory ruling only. The tribunal allowed the unfair dismissal claim to be further particularised, treating the new material as additional detail under s.98 ERA 1996, but made no merits finding. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Interlocutory ruling only. Amendment was allowed so the race discrimination allegations in the June 2022 particulars could proceed, including the complaints about excessive scrutiny, the investigation and dismissal. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Interlocutory ruling only. Amendment was allowed for the victimisation case linked to the June 2020 race complaint; no liability finding was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Interlocutory ruling only. Amendment was allowed to include the disability discrimination complaints, including discrimination arising from disability in relation to dismissal and the appeal outcome. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | Interlocutory ruling only. Amendment was allowed to add the appeal-stage complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments; no merits finding was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Interlocutory ruling only. The claim form referred to notice-pay/contractual complaints, and the tribunal allowed the pleaded case to proceed, but did not determine the notice-pay issue. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
- New Star Asset Management Holdings Limited v Evershed [2010] EWCA Civ 870
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks [2003] ICR 530
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis UKEAT/0207/16
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre T/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble & Others [1997] IRLR 336
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- s.98 ERA 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.