Case 6005188/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Toluwalope Akinbohun v NHS Kent & Medway — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005188/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Toluwalope Akinbohun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. By a letter dated 15 March 2025, it invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal said the basis for the letter was that the claimant did not have the necessary two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim and that the claim therefore appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not make written representations or ask for a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim will be listed for hearing in due course. No remedy was awarded for the struck-out claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By letter dated 15 March 2025, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The stated basis was that the claimant did not have the necessary two years' service and the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing, so the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 38. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim will be listed for hearing in due course. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.