Case 2501585/2021 · Employment Tribunal
G Adigun v Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries International — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501585/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Adigun
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 16 May 2022 in Newcastle by video, Employment Judge O’Dempsey dealt with the claimant’s claims for unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract and unfair dismissal against Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries International. The tribunal held that all three claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they had been presented outside the applicable time limits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limits in the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limits in the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limits in the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 time limits
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.