Case 2404861/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Lady O Akanbi v Clyde & Co Claims LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404861/2024
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lady O Akanbi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to include physical disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation. The judgment states that, after considering the nature and timing of the amendment, time limit issues, and the balance of injustice and hardship, the balance weighed in favour of the respondent.
The Tribunal also refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success, or alternatively to make a deposit order on the basis that it had little reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no monetary award and gives no written reasons beyond the short judgment, noting that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a physical disability under s6 Equality Act 2010, unfavourable treatment under s15, and failure to make reasonable adjustments under s20-21. The substantive discrimination claim was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to include victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010. The substantive victimisation claim was not finally 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.