Case 2207083/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Oshijo v The Big Bus Company Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207083/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wisby
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Oshijo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Wisby sat alone at London Central on 4 and 5 May 2021. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's discrimination complaints because they were presented outside the three-month period in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and were not brought within any period that the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b).
The tribunal also found that, during the period covered by the complaints, the claimant was a worker but not an employee within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not wish to pursue a complaint about furlough payments linked to worker status, and that aspect was treated as withdrawn.
As a consequence of those findings, the claim was dismissed. The judgment does not set out any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's discrimination complaints because they were presented outside the three-month time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and were not brought within any period the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b). The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic(s) individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant said he did not wish to pursue a complaint about furlough payments linked to worker status rather than employee status, and the tribunal treated that aspect as withdrawn. The judgment found that during the relevant period the claimant was a worker but not an employee under section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- section 230 Employment Rights Act 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.