Case 3303902/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr C I Osuchukwu (the claimant’s sister) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303902/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Dr C I Osuchukwu (the claimant’s sister) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal. It held that, on the way the claim was pleaded, the claimant was said to have asserted a right to equal pay, but that was not an assertion of a statutory right within the meaning of s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the statutory basis for an automatic unfair dismissal claim was not made out on the pleaded case, the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would follow unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint for want of jurisdiction. It held that asserting a right to equal pay, as pleaded, is not the assertion of a statutory right within s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.