Case 6004845/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Onigbanjo and Mr N Ojiekhudu v Tripod Partners Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004845/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Onigbanjo and Mr N Ojiekhudu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns Ms E Onigbanjo and Mr N Ojiekhudu's application dated 26 May 2026 for reconsideration of a judgment sent to the parties on 21 May 2026. Employment Judge Hallen refused the reconsideration application.
The reason given was that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge recorded that the claimants' application challenged findings of fact made in the original judgment with which they did not agree. No remedy, monetary award, or separate outcome on the underlying Breach of Contract or Working Time Regulations claims is recorded in this reconsideration judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The only matter determined in the supplied judgment is the claimants' application dated 26 May 2026 for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 21 May 2026, which was refused. The underlying claim outcomes are not stated in this reconsideration judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.