Case 2402448/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Otigbah v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402448/2022
- Decision date
- 21 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Otigbah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing about whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims which were all accepted to have been presented outside the primary time limits. The claimant brought claims for unpaid holiday pay, unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The Tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed on 7 September 2021, not on the later appeal date, and that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time.
For unfair dismissal and holiday pay, the Tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test. It accepted that the claimant had financial problems, had tried to obtain legal advice and had poor mental health particularly in January and February 2022, but found these matters did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It also found that, in any event, the claims were not presented within a reasonable further period after clear warnings from solicitors on 8 March 2022 about time limits.
For discrimination, the Tribunal applied the just and equitable test and reached a different conclusion for the dismissal allegation. It found genuine reasons for delay, including the internal appeal, attempts to obtain advice, financial problems and poor mental health, and considered the prejudice to both parties. The Tribunal allowed only the claim that dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination to proceed; earlier race discrimination and harassment allegations could be relied on as background only and were dismissed as substantive claims because of stronger forensic prejudice and the likely case management consequences of allowing them to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented out of time and the reasonably practicable test for extending time was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as unpaid holiday pay/unauthorised deductions from wages. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented out of time and the reasonably practicable test for extending time was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Time was extended on just and equitable grounds only for the claim that dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination. The merits of that claim were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's other race discrimination allegations, apart from the direct race discrimination dismissal allegation, were dismissed as out of time because it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to harassment claims within the claimant's other race discrimination claims. They were dismissed as out of time because it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Limited v Obi
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.