Case 3202644/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Olamosu v Excellerate Services UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3202644/2020
- Decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Olamosu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to determine whether Mr F Olamosu could proceed with claims of unfair dismissal, race, age and sex discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract and holiday pay. The tribunal found that the relevant limitation date for the dismissal and money claims was 3 May 2020, and that the early conciliation process did not extend time because it began on 7 September 2020. The ET1 was presented on 5 October 2020, so the claims were out of time unless the tribunal extended time.
On unfair dismissal and the money claims, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Olamosu to present the claims within time. It found that he knew he had been dismissed, attended the disciplinary and appeal process, and was accompanied by a trade union representative. He travelled to Nigeria on 8 March 2020, but the tribunal rejected his evidence that he was unable to respond to the respondent or take steps to pursue his claims, finding that he likely had access to email or telephone and did not respond to the respondent's attempts to arrange the appeal hearing. It also found that he took no action between March and June 2020 to seek advice or lodge claims.
For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that the pay complaints relied on events in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and were not shown to be part of a continuing act ending in the dismissal. Applying the section 123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test, and referring to the authorities it cited on time limits, the tribunal declined to extend time. It held that there was inordinate delay and no sufficient explanation for the delay after the claimant said he learned of the employment tribunal in August 2020.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, the unlawful deduction of wages complaint, the breach of contract complaint, the holiday pay complaint, and the race, age and sex discrimination complaints. No compensation or other remedy was awarded, and the remaining hearing dates were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time; the claim concerned alleged unpaid wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as out of time; this related to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal treated the holiday pay complaint as falling under the Working Time Regulations. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found no continuing act and no basis to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found no basis to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal treated it with the other discrimination complaints and declined to extend time. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996 reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Hutchinson v Westward TV
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University LHB v Morgan
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
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.