Case 2210291/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Olawepo v D & D London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2210291/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms O Olawepo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 10 February 2025, Employment Judge Emery struck out the complaints listed in the judgment under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because they were found to have no reasonable prospect of success. The struck-out matters were direct age discrimination complaints 2, 4 and 5; direct sex discrimination complaints 2, 3, 4 and 5; age-related harassment complaints 1, 2, 4 and 5; sex-related harassment complaint 1; and complaint 2D under the 'Other payments' heading, described as unpaid wages resulting from additional weekend guest demands.
The tribunal allowed the remaining complaints to proceed to a final hearing. Those included direct age discrimination complaints 1 and 3, which concerned not being invited to the 31 December Countdown party and an alleged failure to accommodate a transfer request while a 25-year-old receptionist called Angelica was hired; direct sex discrimination complaint 1, concerning an alleged pay disparity between the claimant and Stephen; and age-related harassment complaint 3, concerning the 2023 Countdown party and the comment attributed to Carlos.
The judgment also recorded that victimisation complaints 1 and 2 would proceed, although the extracted text does not further set out the particulars of those allegations. Likewise, 'Other payments' complaints 1 and 2 were allowed to proceed apart from complaint 2D, which was struck out. No liability findings or monetary award were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
19 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Claim 2: manager denied the claimant's full holiday request on grounds of business needs. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim 4: remark as the claimant left the restaurant at the end of her shift, '... she's very quick...'. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim 5: allegation that the claimant was given an excessive workload because there was only one cleaner. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim 1: alleged isolation by failing to invite the claimant to the 31 December Countdown party; this complaint was not struck out and was allowed to proceed. | Other | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim 3: alleged failure to accommodate a transfer to reception or another role and the hiring of a 25-year-old receptionist called Angelica around 22 May 2023; this complaint was not struck out and was allowed to proceed. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim 2: allegations that a male toilet attendant passed work onto the claimant, that she was intimidated after raising incomplete work with management, and that management prioritised Stephen's holiday requests. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.