Case 2302393/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nosa Osawaru v Apcoa Parking Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302393/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nosa Osawaru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for the potentially fair reason of conduct, namely its belief that he had falsified location records and claimed overtime for hours not worked. It found that the relevant managers genuinely held that belief on reasonable grounds after an investigation based on documentary records, GPS data, and the claimant's own responses.
The dismissal was nevertheless procedurally unfair. The letter inviting the claimant to the disciplinary hearing was sent only by post to an old address, despite the respondent having information suggesting other possible addresses and having used email for related correspondence. The appeal did not remedy this because it did not give the claimant an adequate opportunity to address the substantive allegations or reset the disciplinary process.
The tribunal found that dismissal for the conduct found by the respondent was within the range of reasonable responses. It concluded that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair process been followed, and that his conduct contributed to the dismissal to the extent of 100%. The basic and compensatory awards were therefore reduced by 100%, with no ACAS uplift and no financial compensation awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was found unfair because of procedural defects, but compensation was reduced to £0 by Polkey and contributory fault reductions. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Post Office v Foley
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ladrick Lemonious v Church Commissioners
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.