Case 2216037/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A B Adewoyin v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216037/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Walker Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A B Adewoyin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out or dismiss the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service. The tribunal considered the claimant's period as bank staff before he became a permanent employee on 18 October 2021, including evidence about how shifts were offered, accepted, cancelled, and paid.
The tribunal found that each individual bank shift was a separate contract of employment, but that there was no mutuality of obligation between shifts. It found that the claimant's non-working period when he travelled to Nigeria between 26 September and 9 October 2021 broke continuity of employment and did not fall within an exception preserving continuity.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not an employee for the requisite continuous period of two years. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous employment for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 212 Employment Rights Act
- Ibrahim v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
- Agbeze v Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust UKEAT/0232/20
- Uber BV v Aslam
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.