Case 2300565/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Ms D Ajibade consultant — 2022

Case reference: 2300565/2021
Decision date: 14 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Truscott KC
Venue: London South

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Ms D Ajibade consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at an open preliminary hearing on 13 December 2022 before Employment Judge Truscott KC. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been employed by Always and Forever Limited, but the claim had been brought against Jean Bristow, who was described as a director of that company. The claimant's own email said that payments, shifts, emails and the firing of staff were dealt with through Jean Bristow.

The tribunal held that the claim should have been brought against Always and Forever Limited, not against Jean Bristow personally, and that the early conciliation certificate had not been obtained against the correct respondent. It also found that the unpaid wages complaint, said to concern June 2019 and estimated at about £200, was substantially out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and struck out the wages claim under Rule 37(1). No monetary award was made.

The claimant also referred to disability discrimination, but explained that the disability box on the ET1 had been ticked in error and that she did not intend to pursue that claim. The tribunal noted her statement that she referred to her condition as a disorder that hardly affected her and recorded the disability discrimination claim as withdrawn. The allegations of falsifying evidence, stress and defamation of character were also withdrawn after the claimant accepted that they were not within the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for unpaid wages said to relate to June 2019 and estimated at about £200. The tribunal held that Jean Bristow had no personal liability for the claim, that it was presented outside the primary time limit in section 23(2) ERA 1996, and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.	Struck out	—	—
Disability discrimination	The claimant had ticked the disability discrimination box on the ET1, but later said this was an error and that she did not intend to bring a disability discrimination claim. The tribunal noted her statement that her condition did not affect day-to-day activities and recorded the claim as withdrawn.	Withdrawn	Disability	—
Other	The allegations of falsifying evidence, stress and defamation of character were accepted by the claimant to be outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and were withdrawn.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.