Case 2204820/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204820/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
- Panel members
- Ms Z Darmas, Ms L Venner
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record for this case records that the hearing took place at London Central by CVP before Employment Judge Professor A C Neal, with members Ms Z Darmas and Ms L Venner. The Claimant, Ms Titilayo Ayodele, appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr P Fortune of Counsel. The decision lists the claims before the tribunal and states the outcomes, but it does not set out the underlying factual findings or legal reasoning in the written record.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal. It also dismissed the Claimant’s claim for breach of contract. The written record does not include any monetary award or any separate remedy findings.
The tribunal further dismissed the Claimant’s claim alleging unlawful discrimination by reference to the protected characteristic of disability. The written record identifies disability as the protected characteristic relied on, but it does not specify the particular acts complained of or the tribunal’s oral reasons for rejecting the claim.
The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. On the face of the written judgment, all claims were dismissed and no award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written record does not specify the factual particulars of the disability discrimination allegation; oral reasons were given at the hearing and are not included in the written record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.