Case 2410903/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Agukwe & others (see Schedule) v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410903/2019
- Decision date
- 1 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Hodgson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Agukwe & others (see Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment addressing jurisdiction and time limits for multiple claimants. Mr Agukwe, Mr Joseph-Shomorin and Mr Kusi were, by consent, permitted to proceed against the Second Respondent because their claims had been presented in time. The judgment noted that jurisdiction against the First Respondent remained in issue for those claims.
Ms Bryan and Mr Strowger were permitted to proceed against both Respondents despite their claims having been presented out of time. The Tribunal found it had not been reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented in time and that they were presented within a reasonable time thereafter.
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Fanka's and Mr Braiden's claims, except for limited holiday pay claims against the Second Respondent concerning holiday taken on 16 December 2019 and 9 October 2019 respectively. For the remainder of those claims, the Tribunal found they were presented out of time in circumstances where timely presentation had been reasonably practicable and/or they were not presented within a reasonable period thereafter.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Preliminary hearing judgment on jurisdiction and time limits only. Claims by Mr Agukwe, Mr Joseph-Shomorin and Mr Kusi were permitted by consent to proceed against the Second Respondent as presented in time; jurisdiction against the First Respondent remained in issue. Ms Bryan and Mr Strowger's claims were permitted to proceed against both Respondents notwithstanding late presentation. Mr Fanka and Mr Braiden's claims were outside jurisdiction except for limited holiday pay claims against the Second Respondent relating to specified holiday dates. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk category includes unlawful deductions, but the judgment itself records only preliminary decisions on whether claims may proceed and does not adjudicate the substantive wages claim. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk category includes Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself records only preliminary decisions on whether claims may proceed and does not adjudicate the substantive working time claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- reasonable time thereafter
- reasonable period of time thereafter
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.