Case 2302866/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Agomuoh v Serco Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302866/2018
- Decision date
- 26 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Agomuoh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction given the applicable time limits. The claimant had been summarily dismissed on 9 or 10 January 2018 and presented his claim on 15 July 2018. The Tribunal found that the extended time limit for complaints about the dismissal expired on 5 May 2018, and that complaints about earlier events in 2017 were further out of time.
For the unfair dismissal, wages and holiday pay complaints, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim by 5 May 2018. It accepted that the claimant had significant personal and family matters in February and March 2018, but found he had overstated his inability to present the claim sooner and had not submitted it within a further reasonable period in any event.
For the discrimination complaints, the Tribunal was not persuaded that it was just and equitable to extend time. It considered the claimant had not provided a good explanation for the whole period of delay, the discrimination complaints were not clearly articulated, and the passage of time could affect the cogency of evidence about events primarily dating back to May 2017. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claims because it had no jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint, the claim having been presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds and found it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds and found it had no jurisdiction. The judgment records possible disability discrimination and an allegation of dyslexia, but notes dyslexia was not mentioned in the details of claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds and found it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a complaint for unpaid wages and dismisses it because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction, the claim having been presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a complaint for annual leave or holiday pay and dismisses it because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction, the claim having been presented out of time. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- sections 23 and 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Southwark London Borough v Alfolabi [2003] IRLR 220
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.