Case 3207370/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Obano-Airhiavbere v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207370/2021
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Obano-Airhiavbere
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered at a preliminary hearing whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination claims. The claimant had been summarily dismissed on 15 July 2021 and the Tribunal found that this was the effective date of termination, notwithstanding the later appeal process. ACAS Early Conciliation was not started until 2 November 2021 and the claim form was presented on 30 November 2021.
For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found the claim was about 6.5 weeks out of time. It rejected the explanation that the appeal process meant the tribunal process could not start earlier, finding that the claimant knew his dismissal had taken effect on 15 July 2021 and was aware of his right to bring tribunal proceedings by 3 September 2021 at the latest. The Tribunal also found there was no medical evidence showing that stress or panic attacks prevented a timely claim, and that the further delay after ACAS Early Conciliation was not satisfactorily explained.
For direct race discrimination, the Tribunal found the complaint related only to DW's conduct, with DW's last involvement on 26 May 2021, so the primary limitation period expired on 25 August 2021. The claim was about 13.5 weeks out of time. The Tribunal found no physical or mental impediment preventing a timely claim, considered the length and reasons for delay unsatisfactory, and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. Both claims were struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the time limit under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was not presented within a reasonable further period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was presented outside the section 123 time limit; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-On-Sea Borough Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle
- Westward Circuits Ltd v Read
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch and ors
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough v Afolabi
- Robertson and Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan
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.