Case 2304120/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Osazeme Omoregie v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304120/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Osazeme Omoregie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Osazeme Omoregie's claims against South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust were determined by Employment Judge Atkins sitting alone on 23 July 2025. The tribunal struck out the constructive unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent and the unfair dismissal claim against the Second Respondent because each had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also struck out the race discrimination complaint against the First Respondent as having no reasonable prospect of success. As to the Second Respondent, the race discrimination complaint was split into separate issues: the allegation relating to fatigue was struck out on the same basis.
The remaining race discrimination complaint against the Second Respondent, concerning refusal of permission to work at home and a requirement to work in the office, was found to have been presented out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so that part of the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal against the First Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against the Second Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim against the First Respondent. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim against the Second Respondent, insofar as it related to fatigue. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim against the Second Respondent, insofar as it related to being refused permission to work at home/required to work in the office, was found to have been presented out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and time was not extended. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.