Case 2305021/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Agbetu v Greater London Authority — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305021/2021
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Agbetu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at London South ET, before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone, dealt with the case as a preliminary issue. It found that Mr T Agbetu was not an employee of the Greater London Authority within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that Mr Agbetu was not in employment of the respondent within the meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. On those jurisdictional findings, the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The judgment also records that the final hearing listed for 12, 13 and 14 April 2023 was vacated. No monetary remedy was awarded and no written reasons accompanied the decision beyond the oral reasons given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not in employment of the respondent within the meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.