Case 2204813/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Akinosho v London Borough of Camden — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204813/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Akinosho
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 3 March 2021, Employment Judge Emery struck out Mr O Akinosho's 2020 claim against London Borough of Camden. The claim form of 9 August 2020 alleged age and disability discrimination, and the hearing also addressed victimisation allegations arising from the claimant's grievance and a later HCPC referral. For the purposes of the hearing the tribunal accepted that the allegations were credible and could be evidenced, but it did not determine the merits.
The tribunal held that the 2020 claim repeated factual issues already determined in the claimant's earlier 2017 proceedings, which had resulted in a liability judgment on unfair and wrongful dismissal and a later settlement of compensation. It found that the claimant was seeking to relitigate the same factual matrix under different legal labels, including the dismissal and related conduct by Mr Rigby, and that this amounted to an abuse of process. The tribunal relied on the Henderson, Johnson v Gore Wood and Dexter principles in reaching that conclusion.
The tribunal also found the claim out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It held that there had been no fresh referral by the respondent to the HCPC in September 2019; the correspondence showed the HCPC lifting its own stay after settlement material was provided, not a continuing act by Camden. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's wife's illness explained part of the later delay, but not the whole period between the 2019 advice and ACAS steps and the issue of the claim in August 2020.
In reaching the strike-out decision, the tribunal noted the length of time since the events complained of and the resulting prejudice to witnesses' recollection. It therefore ordered that the claim be struck out on the grounds that many factual issues had already been determined in the 2017 case, the claim amounted to an abuse of process, and it was out of time with no just and equitable basis for extension.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Part of the 2020 claim. The tribunal assumed for the preliminary hearing that the allegations could be evidenced and might succeed, but struck the claim out on abuse of process and limitation grounds without deciding the merits. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Part of the 2020 claim. The tribunal assumed for the preliminary hearing that the allegations could be evidenced and might succeed, but struck the claim out on abuse of process and limitation grounds without deciding the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The 2020 claim included victimisation allegations, including a post-employment HCPC referral point. The tribunal found no fresh referral in September 2019 and struck the claim out with the rest of the case without a merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 37(1) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Cox v Adecco
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Henderson v Henderson
- Johnson v Gore Wood
- Dexter v Vlieland-Boddy
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.