Case 3315267/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Oye v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315267/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Oye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing concerning the relationship between the present claim and an earlier tribunal claim, case number 3300082/2022. The claimant had withdrawn the earlier claim in correspondence sent in February, March and April 2023, and a legal officer sent a dismissal judgment on 28 April 2023. The tribunal found that the claimant had capacity by 3 April 2023, that he unambiguously communicated withdrawal of the earlier claim by then at the latest, and that he had intended to end that litigation.
The tribunal refused to extend time for the claimant to have a judge make a fresh decision about the April 2023 dismissal judgment. It found that the claimant had not applied by the 14-day deadline, that the delay was not caused by lack of receipt of the judgment, and that the claimant did not challenge the earlier decision at the time because he did not then wish to continue the earlier claim.
Applying a broad merits-based abuse of process analysis, the tribunal held that it would be an abuse of process to bring Equality Act complaints about sex or race for acts or omissions on or before 23 February 2023, and to bring Equality Act complaints based on any other protected characteristic for acts or omissions on or before 4 November 2022. It also held that arrears of pay complaints relating to January 2023 or earlier, and any unfair dismissal complaint on or before 23 February 2023, would be an abuse of process. The tribunal held, however, that it was not an abuse of process for the claimant to rely on alleged incidents, regardless of date, to support an argument that there was a constructive dismissal in or around November 2023.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Complaints alleging acts or omissions on or before 23 February 2023 as contraventions of the Equality Act 2010 because of sex were held to be an abuse of process and struck out to the extent they formed part of this case. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaints alleging acts or omissions on or before 23 February 2023 as contraventions of the Equality Act 2010 because of race were held to be an abuse of process and struck out to the extent they formed part of this case. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints alleging acts or omissions on or before 4 November 2022 as contraventions of the Equality Act 2010 because of a protected characteristic other than sex or race, including disability if relied on, were held to be an abuse of process and struck out to that extent. Later disability complaints were not finally determined in this judgment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Any arrears of pay complaint, whether framed as unauthorised deduction from wages or breach of contract, relating to the January 2023 payment or earlier was held to be an abuse of process and struck out to that extent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Any arrears of pay complaint framed as breach of contract relating to the January 2023 payment or earlier was held to be an abuse of process and struck out to that extent. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
18 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Anyanwu v South Bank University
- Mechkarov v Citibank N.A
- Cox v Adecco
- Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac Seats
- Henderson v Henderson abuse of process
- Johnson v Gore Wood
- Rules 50 and 51 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust
- Rule 5 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 6 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Mental Capacity Act 2005
- Bon Groundwork Limited v Foster
- Barber v Staffordshire County Council
- Dean-Verity v Khan Solicitors Ltd
- Ezi Floor Trading LLP v Ul-Haq
- Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain
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.