Case 2500580/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Damilare Adedeji v Empire Security Services NE Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500580/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Damilare Adedeji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment given by Employment Judge O'Dempsey at Newcastle Upon Tyne (by video) on 30 July 2024. The respondent's title was amended to Empire Security Services NE Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not enter an appearance.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,118.30. The tribunal also upheld the claim for race discrimination and ordered the respondent to pay £4,000 in respect of injury to feelings, together with interest of £206.90 calculated from 7 December 2023 to 30 July 2024. The claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Written reasons were not provided with the judgment; reasons were given orally at the hearing and will only be produced on request within 14 days under the standard rule.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent did not enter an appearance. | Upheld | — | £1,118 |
| Race discrimination | Award is in respect of injury to feelings, with interest of £206.90 from 7 December 2023 to 30 July 2024. | Upheld | Race | £4,000 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed; no reasons are recorded in the written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,325
- across all upheld claims
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.