Case 3201424/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J F O Ogundeji v Maya Residential London Ltd Trading as AnistenHomes — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201424/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J F O Ogundeji
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms J F O Ogundeji was unfairly dismissed by Maya Residential London Ltd trading as AnistenHomes. It held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, so it increased the compensatory award by 25% under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,209 and a compensatory award of £25,694 for the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment does not split the compensatory figure further, but it records the ACAS Code uplift as part of that award.
The tribunal also found that, when the proceedings were begun, the respondent had breached its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It held that there were no exceptional circumstances making an award of two weeks' gross pay unjust or inequitable, and that it was just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay, so it ordered payment of £1,426 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was also well-founded, but no separate award was made because the compensatory award already covered the same period. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment was £28,329.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded, awarded a basic award of £1,209 and a compensatory award of £25,694, and increased the compensatory award by 25% under s.207A TULRCA 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code. | Upheld | — | £26,903 |
| Other | The respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal held there were no exceptional circumstances making a two-week award unjust or inequitable and awarded four weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,426 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded, but no separate award was made because the compensatory award covered the same period. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,329
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,209
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £25,694
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.