Case 2305481/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Osewa v Serco Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305481/2023
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Miss H Bharadia, Mr D Rogers
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms O Osewa
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Croydon on 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 August 2025 before Employment Judge Leith, Miss H Bharadia and Mr D Rogers. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr Moss, an Employee Relations Consultant.
The judgment records that all complaints failed and were dismissed: direct race discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, annual leave, and unauthorised deduction from wages. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the complaint in respect of annual leave fails and is dismissed. It does not give further detail on whether this was advanced specifically as holiday pay or another Working Time Regulations complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.