Mr M Akinlotan v Oxford Brookes University — 2026

Mr M Akinlotan presented his claim on 25 June 2024 after employment by Oxford Brookes University from 24 April 2023 to 24 April 2024. The Employment Tribunal identified the pleaded complaints as race discrimination, whistleblowing and holiday pay. Following initial consideration under Rule 28(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the hearing on 21 April 2026 considered whether any part of the claim should be permitted to proceed, including the race complaint in light of his written response of 7 October 2025.

The ET1 described alleged systemic or institutional racial discrimination, harassment and bullying. The 7 October response identified nationality and country of origin, stated that Mr Akinlotan was Black and Nigerian, and named his line manager and equivalent Research Officers as comparators. The judge found that the pleadings did not identify who said or did what, when the events occurred, or which facts supported each alleged instance of discrimination. Mr Akinlotan explained that he had deliberately omitted details because he considered that the individuals concerned would otherwise have been victimised by the respondent.

Applying the pleading principles in C v D and Chandok v Tirkey, the judge held that an ET1 must set out the essence of the claimant's case and a brief factual basis for each claim so that the respondent can answer it. The judge found that the race discrimination allegations were unsupported by a factual narrative, could not sensibly be answered by the respondent and could not succeed. The race discrimination complaints were therefore struck out.

The earlier Rule 28 notice recorded the Tribunal's view that the protected-disclosure complaint identified neither a protected disclosure nor an adverse consequence. At the hearing, the judge found that a whistleblowing claim was not set out in the ET1 in any sense and that the basis Mr Akinlotan sought to advance appeared to depend on facts outside both the ET1 and his 7 October 2025 email. That complaint was struck out.

The ET1 alleged that accrued holiday had not been paid and had instead been used, without agreement, for garden leave. The judge found that Mr Akinlotan had not explained the basis of the holiday pay complaint or why it should succeed. That complaint was also struck out.

At the hearing, Mr Akinlotan additionally said that he wished to pursue harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal claims. The judge recorded that neither the ET1 nor the 7 October 2025 email referred to unfair dismissal, that his employment had lasted less than two years, and that nothing he had set out provided another basis for such a claim. The judgment struck out the claim in full and recorded no monetary remedy.