Case 6005152/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Ogedegbe v DM Courier & Transport Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005152/2025
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Ogedegbe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr O Ogedegbe, aged 75 and Black, applied through Indeed for an owner-driver role with DM Courier and Transport Ltd. The respondent conceded that he was an applicant for employment under section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that Mr Mitchell, the respondent’s owner and managing director, would have realised the claimant was older at interview and that the claimant’s name would have indicated that he was Black, but the respondent still invited him to interview and then to a test/trial with another driver.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s principal comparator, Mr Phil Moore, was materially different because he was already working for the respondent and was a driver using company vehicles rather than an owner-driver applicant. The tribunal also found that a hypothetical comparator would not have been treated differently on the evidence before it. It held that there were no facts from which a prima facie case of age or race discrimination could be inferred.
The tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanation that the recruitment position had several non-discriminatory features: the Yodel work required specified documentation and insurance, which the claimant did not complete or provide; the claimant’s van was a concern for the Yodel route; the trial included reported difficulties with the app and a personal call; the claimant did not return missed calls after the trial; and the sick driver who had created the vacancy had returned. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed both the age discrimination and race discrimination complaints as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.39
- Equality Act 2010 s.83(2)
- Equality Act 2010 s.136
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Igen v Wong
- Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority
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.