Case 3301393/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ozedaybe (legal representative) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301393/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Ozedaybe (legal representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge King, sitting alone at Watford on 12 September 2023, dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal (notice pay) complaints. The tribunal held that those claims had been presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them.
The judgment expressly stated, for the avoidance of doubt, that the claimant's race discrimination claim continued. No findings on that discrimination claim were made in this decision, and no monetary remedy was awarded in relation to the dismissed jurisdictional complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay complaint was dismissed for the same reason: it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.