Case 3312467/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Oluwole Taiwo For the v Mr Roy Magara (solicitor advocate) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312467/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr Jon Appleton, Ms Caroline Baggs
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Oluwole Taiwo For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Reading with Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby and lay members Mr Jon Appleton and Ms Caroline Baggs, held that the claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim was well founded. It awarded him one week’s wages in the gross sum of £480 for that claim.
All other claims were dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having asserted a statutory right and/or made a protected disclosure, his direct sex discrimination claim about the decision to dismiss him, his claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, and his breach of contract claim other than wrongful dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well founded and awarded one week’s wages in the gross sum of £480. | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having asserted a statutory right and/or made a protected disclosure was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant’s direct sex discrimination claim about the decision to dismiss him was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant’s breach of contract claim other than the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £480
- across all upheld claims
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.