Case 3314707/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Kumi v Corps Security (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314707/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Kumi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction rather than a final determination of liability or remedy. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaint that his dismissal was direct discrimination because of race, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, because the claim was brought within a period that it was just and equitable to allow.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of that discrimination complaint in this judgment. It also did not decide at this stage whether it had jurisdiction over the claimant's complaints concerning matters before the dismissal; that issue was adjourned for determination at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaint that his dismissal was direct discrimination because of race, finding it just and equitable to extend time for that complaint. The question of jurisdiction over complaints about matters before the dismissal was adjourned to the final hearing; no merits determination was made. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.