Case 2208107/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mathios Berhane v Mr Adebowale Olujimi and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208107/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Mathios Berhane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing on 23 October 2023, Employment Judge Gidney considered the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 25 August 2023. The tribunal dismissed that application. The written record says the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The claimant also provided further clarity on the particulars of less favourable treatment in his direct sex and race discrimination claims. The tribunal dismissed on withdrawal the clarified particulars listed in the judgment: the allegation that between January and April 2021 he was paid 60% of salary while Ms Lister was paid 80% of hers, and the allegation that he was downgraded to a zero-hours contract while Ms Lister's contract was not downgraded. The judgment does not record any substantive merits findings on those underlying claims and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records dismissal on withdrawal of the claimant's clarified particulars of less favourable treatment within the direct sex discrimination claim; it does not determine the merits of the underlying claim. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records dismissal on withdrawal of the claimant's clarified particulars of less favourable treatment within the direct race discrimination claim; it does not determine the merits of the underlying claim. | Withdrawn | Race | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.