Case 6000634/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Lamid-Ajao v Sodexo Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000634/2025
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Lamid-Ajao
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered time-limit issues in the claimant's race discrimination complaint. It found that the complaint about an incident said to have occurred on 17 August 2024 was presented outside the primary time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010, but within such further period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear that complaint and that it would proceed to a final hearing. The question of whether time should be extended for an earlier incident said to have occurred on 10 May 2024 was left to be determined at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment addresses time-limit jurisdiction for race discrimination complaints. The incident said to have occurred on 17 August 2024 may proceed to a final hearing; the time-extension question for the incident said to have occurred on 10 May 2024 was deferred to the final hearing. No merits outcome or remedy was determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.