Case 2301397/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Akintola v Mitie Security Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301397/2023
- Decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Knowles Appearances
- Venue
- London South via Video Hearing
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Akintola
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a strike out warning issued in relation to the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. The warning concerned lack of qualifying service because, on the face of the claim form, the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant provided replies, but the tribunal found that they did not set out reasons that would fall within complaints capable of giving rise to automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint was outside its jurisdiction and struck it out.
The respondent also applied to strike out the unlawful deductions of wages claim. The tribunal was not persuaded that this claim had no reasonable prospect of success, refused the application, and directed that the wages claim proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because it did not have jurisdiction; the claimant had less than two years' service and his replies did not set out reasons falling within automatic unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent's application to strike out the unlawful deductions of wages claim was refused. The claim was not finally determined in this judgment and was to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37
- automatic unfair dismissal
- two years' qualifying service
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.