Case 2304964/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F. Otsumah v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING (OPEN) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304964/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L. Clarke Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F. Otsumah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 20 April 2022 was a preliminary hearing in which the Respondent sought to strike out the Claimant's claims. Employment Judge L. Clarke dismissed that application. The Tribunal said it was not satisfied that either the constructive unfair dismissal claim or the unlawful deduction from wages claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal went further in relation to the unlawful deduction from wages claim and found that it had little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was described as one about non-payment for a period when the Claimant was not attending work, although he said he was fit and well to work and was shielding at home during the Covid pandemic to protect his two extremely clinically vulnerable children. The judgment recorded that the Claimant was not himself vulnerable.
As a result, the Tribunal ordered the Claimant to pay a deposit of £100 by 1 September 2022 as a condition of continuing to advance the unlawful deduction from wages claim. The Tribunal said it had taken the Claimant's ability to comply into account when fixing the amount. A separate case management order set out the steps needed before final hearing, and written reasons were not to be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | At this preliminary hearing, the Respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal had no reasonable prospect of success. There was no final merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At this preliminary hearing, the Respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal also found that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered the Claimant to pay a deposit of £100 by 1 September 2022 as a condition of continuing to advance it. The Tribunal recorded that the claim concerned non-payment for a period when the Claimant was shielding at home during the Covid pandemic to protect his two extremely clinically vulnerable children, while he was not himself vulnerable. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- deposit order
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.