Bose Omisore v Milton Keynes City Council — 2026

The judgment concerned the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination claims, or alternatively for a deposit order. The tribunal refused both applications. Employment Judge Annand stated that no findings of fact were being made and no decision would bind the judge who determines the case at a final hearing.

The claimant was employed as a Telecare Officer from 15 November 1999 until 18 December 2024. The claims identified for the final hearing are unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. The unfair dismissal issues include consultation, up-to-date medical opinion, whether the respondent could reasonably have waited longer before dismissing, procedural fairness, and whether long-term absence was reasonably treated as a sufficient reason for dismissal. The race discrimination allegations concern events during and after a disciplinary investigation, including the claimant's name being written in red pen, assignment to a quarantine role, being told not to pick calls, alleged disclosure to a colleague about a disciplinary meeting, handling of the disciplinary process compared with white British colleagues, and termination of employment.

On strike out, the tribunal applied Rule 38 and the authorities emphasising caution where claims are fact-sensitive, particularly discrimination claims. It found that the prospects assessment turned on disputed factual issues, including whether alleged race-related treatment occurred, whether any less favourable treatment was significantly influenced by race, and whether any time-limit issues should be addressed by a conduct-extending-over-a-period analysis or a just and equitable extension after evidence is heard. The tribunal held that the respondent's proposed explanations and comparator arguments were assertions about evidence for a final hearing, not undisputed evidence before the preliminary hearing.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been off sick for 13 months before the dismissal decision, but found that material issues remained in dispute. These included whether the respondent could have been expected to wait longer in light of the claimant's service and recent bereavements, the Occupational Health advice, what the claimant communicated about returning to work or completing therapy, and the procedural paperwork. The tribunal concluded that neither claim had no reasonable prospects or little reasonable prospects of success, and declined to strike out the claims or order a deposit. No compensation or other remedy was awarded in this judgment.