Case 3205549/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Emmanuel Okereke v Teamwork GB Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205549/2021
- Decision date
- 20 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Emmanuel Okereke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmmanuel Okereke commenced employment with Teamwork GB Limited in June 2018. His employment was terminated by reason of redundancy, with an effective date of termination of 1 November 2020.
The breach of contract claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for that complaint to have been presented within time.
The redundancy payment claim was also not presented within 6 months of the relevant date, but the tribunal found that it was just and equitable that the claimant should not be deprived of his right to a redundancy payment. The tribunal declared that he was entitled to £925.
The judgment records that the redundancy payment was calculated under section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as 2.5 weeks at £370 per week.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Presented out of time; the tribunal was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Although not presented within 6 months of the relevant date, the tribunal found it just and equitable that the claimant should not be deprived of his right to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £925 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £925
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.