Case 2301782/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Turay v Equans E&S Solutions Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301782/2024
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Turay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 June 2025, at London South, Employment Judge Ramsden heard a preliminary issue in the case between Mr O Turay and Equans E&S Solutions Limited. The Tribunal considered whether the claimant's claims had been presented in time.
The Tribunal held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of persuading it at the final hearing that his claims were presented in time. It therefore struck out the claim pursuant to Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The hearing listed for 29 September to 2 October 2025 was vacated. The respondent's application for costs was refused. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal struck out the claim on a preliminary timeliness issue, finding no reasonable prospect of persuading it at the final hearing that the claim had been presented in time under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal struck out the claim on a preliminary timeliness issue, finding no reasonable prospect of persuading it at the final hearing that the claim had been presented in time under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.