Case 3201906/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Orogbu v Duncan Lewis Solicitors Limited — 2021

Case reference: 3201906/2021
Decision date: 15 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Orogbu

Respondent

Duncan Lewis Solicitors Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent did not attend the hearing and had failed to enter a response. Employment Judge Burgher therefore issued default judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing was conducted remotely by telephone conference call, and the judgment records that a face-to-face hearing was not required because the relevant matters could be determined remotely.

Judgment was entered in the claimant's favour in respect of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The judgment does not set out the underlying facts or any liability reasoning beyond the rule 21 default basis, and no remedy was fixed at this stage.

A separate remedy hearing was listed for 10 March 2022 for one day by Cloud Video Platform.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Judgment entered for the claimant by default under rule 21 after the respondent failed to enter a response.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment states that the claimant succeeded in respect of discrimination arising from disability.	Upheld	Disability	—
Other	The judgment also records success on the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.