Case 2404611/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Isaac Adewusi v Sandstone Care (Much Hoole) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404611/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- Liverpool via CVP and Telephone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Isaac Adewusi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge D Wright sitting alone at Liverpool by CVP and telephone on 23 January 2023. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Sandstone Care (Much Hoole) Limited. It then dealt with strike-out and deposit-order applications across the linked case numbers 2404611/2022 and 2409310/2022, rather than determining the substantive merits of the live claims.
The claimant's constructive dismissal claim in case number 2409310/2022 was held to be out of time and was struck out. The tribunal also struck out the claimant's stand-alone claim for intimidation and victimisation, while recording that the facts relied on could still be used to support discrimination allegations where appropriate.
The respondent's other strike-out applications were refused. The respondent's application for a deposit order was allowed only for the discrimination claim concerning the alleged failure to provide an end of probation meeting, and the respondent's other deposit-order applications were refused. The extracted text does not record any monetary award or final merits findings on the remaining live claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim number 2409310/2022 was found to be out of time and was struck out at the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal struck out the stand-alone claim for intimidation and victimisation, while stating that the underlying facts could still be relied on where relevant in support of discrimination claims. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's other strike-out application(s) were refused. The extracted text does not set out a final merits decision on the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The respondent's application for a deposit order was allowed in relation to the discrimination claim concerning the alleged failure to provide an end of probation meeting. The merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
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.