Case 2306201/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Edekpayi v Henfield Storage (Southwark) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306201/2023
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Edekpayi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Tsamados on 15 July 2025, dealt only with preliminary time-limit issues. It held that Mr Daniel Edekpayi's unfair dismissal complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the race discrimination complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time. The race discrimination complaint was therefore allowed to proceed. No merits findings or remedy were recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time, so the race discrimination complaint was allowed to proceed. No merits decision is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.