Case 3302932/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Barry Lasoju v XMA Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302932/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Barry Lasoju
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 21 July 2025, Employment Judge Young held that Mr Barry Lasoju’s complaints against XMA Ltd were out of time. The complaints of unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal by reason of TUPE were dismissed because the tribunal found they were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time.
The tribunal also dismissed the race discrimination, disability discrimination and age discrimination complaints, together with the complaint of harassment related to disability and the complaint of victimisation. It found those complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for them.
No monetary award was made. The written record notes that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s usual procedure.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Automatic unfair dismissal by reason of TUPE. Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability. Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.