Case 2404306/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Adegbite v The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and 3 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404306/2018
- Decision date
- 16 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr A Adegbite
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that deposit orders had been made on 9 July 2019 in relation to the claimant's contention that his resignation was really a dismissal, which underpinned his unfair dismissal and notice pay complaints. Deposit orders were also made for complaints of direct race discrimination, victimisation and protected disclosure detriment, and for any complaints pursued personally against Dr Tierney or Dr McCallum.
The claimant did not pay the deposits. The Tribunal therefore struck out all those complaints. All claims against the second, third and fourth respondents were struck out and those respondents were removed from the proceedings.
The only complaint left in the proceedings was unlawful deductions from pay against the employer. The judgment stated that this complaint had been listed for a two-hour final hearing on 18 November 2019 and invited the parties to consider whether it could be resolved by agreement.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The contention that the claimant's resignation was really a dismissal underpinned the unfair dismissal complaint. A deposit order was made and the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment refers to notice pay complaints underpinned by the contention that the resignation was really a dismissal. A deposit order was made and the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment identifies complaints of direct race discrimination. A deposit order was made and the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | A deposit order was made in relation to victimisation complaints and the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to protected disclosure detriment. A deposit order was made and the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was the sole surviving complaint and was listed for a later final hearing; it was not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.