Case 2408767/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Okosun v University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408767/2020
- Decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Okosun
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Mr E Okosun did not attend the hearing at Liverpool on 9 September 2022. The respondent, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, was represented by Ms L Kaye, counsel.
Employment Judge Benson struck out all remaining claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The stated grounds were that the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Orders dated 12 August 2021 and 11 April 2022, and had not actively pursued his claim.
The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £4,000 plus VAT pursuant to Rule 76(2). The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that all remaining claims were struck out but does not identify the specific claim type(s) in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(2) Employment Tribunal 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.