Case 3315304/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Abayomi v College of Policing Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3315304/2022
Decision date: 16 March 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tobin Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Abayomi

Respondent

College of Policing Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr K Abayomi's claim against College of Policing Limited was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 30 December 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Tobin decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The judgment records that the claim succeeds, but it does not set out separate findings on the pleaded heads of claim or any monetary award. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The extracted judgment does not identify this head separately; it states only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and leaves remedy to a later hearing. The claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing for the case.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The extracted judgment does not identify this head separately; it states only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and leaves remedy to a later hearing. The claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing for the case.	Upheld	—	—
Working time regulations	The extracted judgment does not identify this head separately; it states only that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and leaves remedy to a later hearing. The claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing for the case.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.