Case 3201422/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Olaiya v Balgores Property Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201422/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs V Olaiya brought complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and discrimination on the grounds of race and disability against Balgores Property Services Ltd. At the hearing on 5 December 2023 before Employment Judge Jones, the tribunal decided the case on jurisdictional and time-limit grounds rather than on the merits.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant was self-employed, had not worked for the respondent for the minimum two years required by section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, and presented the claim on 2 August 2023, which was outside the stated limit of 29 April 2023 under sections 111(2) and 207B. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The unlawful deduction of wages complaint was also struck out. The tribunal again found that the claimant was self-employed and that the claim, presented on 2 August 2023, was outside the time limit under sections 23(2) and 207B Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been brought in time.
For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that the last possible discriminatory act alleged was 18 November 2022, which the judgment also identified as the effective date of termination. The discrimination claims were presented on 2 August 2023, outside the time limit set by sections 123(1)(a) and 140B Equality Act 2010, said to expire on 29 April 2023. The tribunal did not exercise its discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis, and the race and disability discrimination complaints were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was self-employed, had not worked the minimum two years under section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, and presented the complaint on 2 August 2023 outside the time limit, which was said to be 29 April 2023. The tribunal also found it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was self-employed and the complaint was presented on 2 August 2023 outside the time limit under sections 23(2) and 207B Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. The last possible discriminatory act alleged was 18 November 2022, the claimant presented the complaints on 2 August 2023, this was outside the time limit said to expire on 29 April 2023, and the tribunal did not exercise its discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. The last possible discriminatory act alleged was 18 November 2022, the claimant presented the complaints on 2 August 2023, this was outside the time limit said to expire on 29 April 2023, and the tribunal did not exercise its discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable basis
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.