Case 3300193/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Adeyinka v MBS Lighting UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300193/2021
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Adeyinka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis decision records a preliminary hearing at Reading Employment Tribunal on 20 July 2022 before Employment Judge Eeley. The respondent, MBS Lighting UK Ltd, was represented by Ms L Hatch and the claimant, Mr O Adeyinka, appeared in person.
The only substantive decision recorded is that the respondent's application dated 29 June 2022 to strike out the claimant's claim was refused. The judgment does not set out the tribunal's reasons in writing, stating instead that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No determination of the underlying tribunal claims is recorded in this written judgment, and no remedy is awarded. The record also states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent's application dated 29 June 2022 to strike out the claimant's claim was refused. The written record does not determine the underlying discrimination claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.