Case 2202615/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Adenaike v Ministry of Justice — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202615/2018
- Decision date
- 9 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Adenaike
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that he no longer pursued his unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal explored this with him and noted that the withdrawal was consistent with the list of issues he had produced for the hearing, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal identified the remaining discrimination claims as race and disability discrimination. The race discrimination claim was narrowed to an allegation that, after an altercation between the claimant and Mr Matthew Chandler, Mr Nuna gave attention only to certain white alleged witnesses and ignored what was said by Manager Joy Atotileto. The claimant explained that a further alleged incident involving a threat was not put as race discrimination.
The disability discrimination complaint was struck out. The tribunal found the pleaded disability complaint extremely vague, and the claimant said at the hearing that the disadvantage he relied on was instead a failure to cross-train him. The tribunal considered that this was not part of the pleaded claim, was highly speculative and inconsistent with documents and the existing pleaded case, and that there was no amendment application before it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant confirmed he no longer pursued it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaint was struck out at the preliminary hearing. The claimant disavowed the basis of the existing pleaded disability complaint, and the cross-training allegation was treated as a new, speculative and unpleaded claim with no amendment application before the tribunal. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was identified and narrowed at the preliminary hearing, but this judgment does not determine or dispose of it. | Other | Race | — |
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.