Case 3307434/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Onovwakpoma v Age UK Oxfordshire — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307434/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Onovwakpoma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr J Onovwakpoma had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, he was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment records that the claimant said his case was brought under race, which the tribunal treated as relating to his race discrimination claim. It said that allegation, including any allegation that the dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination, would continue and did not affect the unfair dismissal issue. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint and stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's race discrimination complaint was not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.