Case 3302498/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Adedeji v Macintyre Academies Heard: In person, public preliminary hearing — 2024

Case reference: 3302498/2023
Decision date: 30 December 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Adkin Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Adedeji

Respondent

Macintyre Academies Heard: In person, public preliminary hearing

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Adedeji started work for Macintyre Academies on 16 April 2018 as a Residential Support Worker. The tribunal recorded a grievance on 16 November 2021, an email described as a whistleblowing email on 29 January 2022, sick leave from 28 March 2022, non-payment of sick pay from November 2022 and resignation on 7 March 2023. The hearing on 9 December 2024 was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out and deposit applications, together with the claimant's application to bar reliance on certain documents said to be forged.

Applying Rule 37 and the guidance in Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Cox v Adecco, T Smith v Tesco and the Presidential Guidance on General Case Management 2018, the tribunal found that Employment Judge Glennie had twice ordered the claimant to set out each complaint in simple, dated terms, but the later emails and chronology documents still did not provide clear and cogent particulars of the age, race, disability and sex discrimination allegations. The tribunal concluded that those discrimination claims remained incoherent and that a fair hearing was no longer possible, so they were struck out.

The tribunal treated the section 103A protected disclosure complaint differently. It held that the claim forms contained enough to identify a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal based on alleged disclosures on 29 January 2022 and 22 February 2022, later investigation steps from 9 May 2022, delay in the grievance process and suspension-pay issues. Although the judge had doubts about the claim's prospects, he was not satisfied that it had little reasonable prospect of success and refused the respondent's deposit application under Rule 39. The claimant's application to bar documents was also refused, and the authenticity issues were left for the final hearing, with the protected disclosure claim listed to proceed to a judge-alone hearing in January 2025.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Struck out under Rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with Employment Judge Glennie's orders to particularise the claim in date order with the event, participants and legal type of complaint. The tribunal found no coherent age discrimination case could be identified and that a fair hearing was no longer possible.	Struck out	Age	—
Race discrimination	Struck out under Rule 37 on the same basis as the other discrimination claims: repeated non-compliance with orders for clarification and no coherent race discrimination particulars from the later emails and chronology documents.	Struck out	Race	—
Disability discrimination	Struck out under Rule 37 because the claimant did not give coherent, dated particulars of the disability discrimination complaints despite two opportunities to comply with Employment Judge Glennie's orders.	Struck out	Disability	—
Sex discrimination	Struck out under Rule 37. The tribunal held that the sex discrimination allegations remained incoherent after repeated attempts at clarification and that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of them.	Struck out	Sex	—
Whistleblowing	The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications were refused in relation to the section 103A protected disclosure complaint. The tribunal found an identifiable thread in the claim forms, including alleged disclosures on 29 January 2022 and 22 February 2022, later investigation steps from 9 May 2022, grievance delay and suspension-pay issues, and allowed the claim to proceed to the merits hearing.

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.