Case 2302202/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sokunbi v Asda Stores Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302202/2018
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sokunbi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered the Respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim, or alternatively for a deposit order, on the basis that the Claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service and/or that the claim had no or little reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal also permitted the Respondent to rely on amended grounds of resistance.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's dismissal in February 2017 had been overturned on appeal and that he had been re-engaged after the Respondent received a Positive Verification Notice in June 2017. Applying the principle in Roberts, and alternatively s.212(3)(c) ERA 1996, the Tribunal held that continuity of employment was preserved despite the period when the Claimant was not working or being paid.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had sufficient qualifying service under s.108 ERA 1996. It also held that the unfair dismissal claim was arguable, depended on findings of fact after evidence, and should not be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. A final hearing was to be listed separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal held the Claimant had sufficient qualifying service to claim unfair dismissal and refused the Respondent's strike-out/deposit-order application; liability was left for a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.210(5) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.212(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.212(3)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Roberts v West Coast Trains [2005] ICR 254
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.