Case 2301201/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr N Ikeh (2) Mr E Obaseki v Mitie Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301201/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- J Hutchings, K Ghotbi-Ravandi
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr N Ikeh (2) Mr E Obaseki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South on 6-10 October 2025, Employment Judge Atkins sat with lay members J Hutchings and K Ghotbi-Ravandi. The tribunal gave a unanimous judgment in the claims brought by Mr N Ikeh and Mr E Obaseki against Mitie Limited and dismissed all claims before it.
The First Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and breach of contract were each found not well founded and failed. The Second Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and breach of contract were also found not well founded and failed.
The First Claimant's disability-related claims, described in the judgment as disability arising from discrimination and failure to provide reasonable adjustments, were also found not well founded and failed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First Claimant; the judgment states the claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second Claimant; the judgment states the claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | First Claimant; the judgment records this only as an automatic unfair dismissal claim and does not specify the automatic ground in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Second Claimant; the judgment records this only as an automatic unfair dismissal claim and does not specify the automatic ground in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | First Claimant; the judgment states the claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Second Claimant; the judgment states the claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | First Claimant; the judgment describes this as a claim of disability arising from discrimination and states it was not well founded and failed. |
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.