Case 2403630/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O D Adesina v Cucumber Recruitment Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2403630/2024
- Decision date
- 30 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O D Adesina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, direct race discrimination, and victimisation against Cucumber Recruitment Limited. The case was heard at Manchester on 25 and 26 February 2026 before Employment Judge Barker.
The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint because it failed. It also dismissed the direct race discrimination and victimisation complaints because they were not well-founded.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages fails and is dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | 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.