Case 3200799/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Oluponle v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200799/2023
- Decision date
- 25 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Havard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Oluponle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the Tribunal struck out the claimant's direct discrimination claims on the grounds of sex and race under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). The Tribunal stated that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal complaint and his claim for an amount in respect of unlawful deduction from wages. Those withdrawn claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The direct discrimination claim on the grounds of sex was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct discrimination claim on the grounds of race was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal complaint, which was dismissed pursuant to Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant withdrew the claim for an amount in respect of unlawful deduction from wages, which was dismissed pursuant to Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.