Case 3311072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Onyinye Ndukwe v Fortress Operations Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311072/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey Appearances
- Venue
- Reading in private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Onyinye Ndukwe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 38 because it found the claim was not within the tribunal's jurisdiction, as the claimant did not have the necessary continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claims, and no reasonable prospect of establishing grounds to extend time for the whistleblowing claim. It also struck out the complaints of age discrimination, race discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing and unauthorised deduction from wages because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 38 because the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction, as the claimant lacked the necessary continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). The tribunal stated the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend time for discrimination claims, and also stated the age discrimination complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). The tribunal stated the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend time for discrimination claims, and also stated the race discrimination complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). The tribunal stated the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend time for discrimination claims, and also stated the religion or belief discrimination complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The order lists harassment among the complaints struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The protected characteristic for the harassment complaint is not specified. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.