Case 2300717/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Odjoh v McDonald’s Restaurants Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300717/2023
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Odjoh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 25 August 2023 before Employment Judge R Russell. It found that the claim had been presented outside the time limit. The tribunal also found that it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable to bring the Claim in time
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.