Case 2218669/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Majekodumni v AITi RE Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2218669/2024
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Majekodumni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public on 21 November 2024, before Employment Judge Emery sitting by CVP at London Central, the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused. The tribunal said that it would decide at the final hearing whether the claim had been presented within the applicable time limit and, if not, whether it was just and equitable to extend the time limit.
The tribunal also refused the respondent's application for a deposit order. It held that it could not be said, at this stage, that the claimant's argument on time limits lacked reasonable prospects, or that his race discrimination and breach of contract claims had little reasonable prospects of success. No substantive merits decision or monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the strike-out application and refused a deposit order; it did not decide the merits of the underlying race discrimination claim. | Other | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the strike-out application and refused a deposit order; it did not decide the merits of the underlying breach of contract claim. | Other | — | — |
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.