Mr Olufemi Adeniyi v Frontier Support Services Limited — 2026

Mr Olufemi Adeniyi applied for reconsideration of the judgment dated 25 May 2026, promulgated on 30 May 2026, which struck out his ordinary unfair dismissal claim and his claim that he was dismissed on the ground of a protected disclosure. The tribunal had concluded that both claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The tribunal rejected the contention that it had failed to consider Mr Adeniyi's case that managers and an accuser planned to fabricate allegations to silence his whistleblowing. It found that he had been permitted to state that case fully at the strike-out hearing and that oral evidence from Mr Olanrewaju would not have added materially to the position being assessed. The strike-out reasoning was based on WhatsApp messages whose content Mr Adeniyi did not dispute and which the tribunal found would have constituted gross misconduct on the ground of sexual harassment, even if he had also made protected disclosures.

Addressing causation under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that its earlier decision had not treated the respondent's stated reason for dismissal as determinative or failed to consider whistleblowing retaliation. It had concluded from the undisputed contemporaneous messages that there was no prospect of Mr Adeniyi establishing at trial that the dismissal did not flow directly from the sexual-harassment allegations. It also found that the earlier judgment had assessed the prospects of the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under the Burchell test and had addressed alleged procedural irregularity.

The tribunal rejected the grounds concerning the preparation and contents of the hearing bundle. It found no evidence that Frontier Support Services Limited had dishonestly misled the tribunal or deliberately manipulated the documents. Although some content was missing from one bundle page and two pages were blurred, the complete email chain appeared elsewhere in the bundle and the blurred pages remained legible. The tribunal also found that the claimant had received and used the bundle and that his participation by telephone had not prevented him from referring to it.

The tribunal accepted that the earlier judgment had misstated the date of one alleged event as September rather than October. That ground engaged the interests-of-justice test under rule 68(1), but the error was immaterial because the event had not formed part of the findings, which were based solely on the undisputed WhatsApp messages. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect under rule 70(2) that the strike-out judgment would be varied or revoked on that or any other ground, refused the reconsideration application, and recorded no monetary award.