Case 3307565/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Augustine Ogunsola v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307565/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Augustine Ogunsola
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 March 2021, Employment Judge Cassel sitting alone considered whether Mr Augustine Ogunsola's unfair dismissal complaint against Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust was in time. The claimant had been dismissed on 9 August 2018 following a meeting on 25 July 2018, had been told that dismissal was a possible outcome, had attended with a solicitor, and had exercised his internal appeal. He contacted ACAS on 26 June 2020, received an Early Conciliation Certificate on 29 June 2020, and presented his ET1 on 4 August 2020.
The tribunal applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claim was presented well outside the three-month limitation period. It accepted that the claimant knew of Employment Tribunals at the time of dismissal, but found that he did not take steps to find out the time limits. The claimant said his focus was on the criminal proceedings and that he only acted after receiving information about judicial review, but the tribunal found there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time.
The tribunal also rejected any extension of time under the statutory exception. It found that the claimant was intelligent and well educated, had undertaken legal research in relation to judicial review, and had received further legal advice before 15 April 2019. On that basis, the tribunal held that there was no impediment preventing him from making reasonable enquiries about tribunal time limits, and it dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded; the judgment noted that any costs application would need to be made separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented outside the three-month time limit and the tribunal found no basis to extend time under s.111(2) ERA 1996. Paragraph 22 refers to '26 June 2022', which appears to be a typographical error given the surrounding chronology and the earlier ACAS contact date of 26 June 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.