Case 2407541/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ayodele v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407541/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Ayodele
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal amended the title of the 2nd respondent to “University of Salford”. It then applied provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and held that it did not have jurisdiction in respect of the claimant’s claim against the 2nd respondent, dismissing that claim accordingly.
The 1st respondent applied for a deposit order under rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Tribunal refused that application because it was unable to conclude at the preliminary hearing that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
The claim against the 1st respondent was not finally determined in this judgment and was directed to proceed to the listed final hearing. Case management directions were also given about provision of a hard copy bundle, agreement of the final hearing bundle, and exchange of witness statements.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination. The judgment itself refers to Equality Act 2010 jurisdiction and dismisses the claim against the 2nd respondent for lack of jurisdiction, but the extracted judgment text does not set out the factual allegations or expressly name race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- sections 53-54 Equality Act 2010
- sections 55-56 Equality Act 2010
- section 91 Equality Act 2010
- section 114 Equality Act 2010
- section 120 Equality Act 2010
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.