Case 2303219/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M U Okoli v Abellio London Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303219/2020
- Decision date
- 5 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South Croydon in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M U Okoli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 21 February 2020 following a disciplinary process arising from a driving incident. He appealed, and the appeal outcome was sent on 27 May 2020. Early conciliation began on 3 June 2020 and ended on 9 June 2020, and the claim was presented on 16 June 2020, after the primary three-month time limit had expired.
For the unfair dismissal, breach of contract and wages complaints, the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim in time. It did not accept, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant's evidence about ACAS advice, and found that he could have discovered the relevant time limits through his trade union resources or internet access. The Tribunal also found that, even after the appeal outcome, the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period.
For the race and age discrimination complaints, the Tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It noted that the discrimination allegations were not set out in real detail, had not been raised with the respondent before the claim form, and appeared to relate to the dismissal. The Tribunal found no untoward delay by the respondent in arranging the appeal during the Covid-19 period and concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the discrimination complaints.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the complaint was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the race discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the age discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the complaint, including alleged entitlement to holiday pay and other unspecified payments, was presented outside the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the damages complaint in respect of notice pay was presented outside the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
- Clarke v Hampshire Electro-Plating Co Ltd
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.