Case 2213510/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr ADEYEMI OJESE v Hestia Housing and Support — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213510/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr ADEYEMI OJESE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge David Hughes, sitting at London Central by CVP over four days in March 2024, heard claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal brought by Mr Adeyemi Ojese against Hestia Housing and Support. The Respondent's application that the Employment Judge recuse himself was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and upheld it. The Respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £932.08, together with £250 for loss of statutory rights.
The Tribunal further found that the Respondent had wrongfully dismissed the Claimant and ordered an additional payment of £1,577.28, representing four weeks' net pay. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £932.08 plus £250 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,182 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found the Respondent wrongfully dismissed the Claimant; award represents 4 weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £1,577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,759
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £932
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.