Case 4102920/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O A Osinubi v Newcross Healthcare Solution — 2026
- Case reference
- 4102920/2025
- Decision date
- 10 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O A Osinubi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 June 2026, Employment Judge E Mannion struck out Mr O A Osinubi's ordinary unfair dismissal claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The Tribunal found that he did not have the requisite two years' service to bring that claim.
The Tribunal refused Newcross Healthcare Solution's application to strike out the protected disclosure claims, comprising automatic unfair dismissal and detriment. Those claims were not finally determined by this judgment.
The Tribunal also refused to strike out the claims of direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but found that each had little reasonable prospect of success. It therefore made a deposit order under Rule 40 requiring Mr Osinubi to pay £100 for each of those three claims within 21 days. The judgment stated that any part for which the required deposit was not paid must be struck out under Rule 40(4). No compensation or other remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 38 because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The respondent's application to strike out the protected disclosure claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment was unsuccessful; the claims were not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The strike-out application was unsuccessful, but a £100 deposit was ordered under Rule 40 because the claim was found to have little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was not finally determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The strike-out application was unsuccessful, but a £100 deposit was ordered under Rule 40 because the claim was found to have little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was not finally determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The strike-out application was unsuccessful, but a £100 deposit was ordered under Rule 40 because the claim was found to have little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was not finally determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- little reasonable prospect of success under Rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.