Case 2301731/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Oluremi Osimade v Transport for London — 2026
- Case reference
- 2301731/2025
- Decision date
- 16 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Oluremi Osimade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Oluremi Osimade was not an employee of Transport for London at any material time. It dismissed her complaint of unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 to determine the claims for notice pay and breach of contract. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaints had previously been withdrawn, although it does not identify them, and that no claims remained before the Tribunal. The written judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent at any material time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the claim for notice pay under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.