Case 2305333/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Adepoju v The Governing Body of All Saints C of E Primary School — 2019
- Case reference
- 2305333/2021
- Decision date
- 6 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Claimant
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Adepoju
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's averment that there was conduct extending over a period within the meaning of s.139 Equality Act 2010. It found that point had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also held that the discrimination complaints relating to the period between 14 November 2017 and 6 March 2019 were presented out of time. It was not just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were dismissed. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The averment that there was conduct extending over a period within the meaning of s.139 Equality Act 2010 was held to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The complaints of discrimination in the period between 14 November 2017 and 6 March 2019 were presented out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed those complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.139 Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospect of success
- just and equitable to extend time
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.