Case 6005981/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adeyemi Amure v St Mungo Community Housing Association — 2026
- Case reference
- 6005981/2025
- Decision date
- 7 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- London East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adeyemi Amure
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Mr Adeyemi Amure's complaint of direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the complaints were presented outside the applicable statutory time limit, that there were no continuing acts that were both in time and actionable, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The dismissal was recorded as being for want of title and jurisdiction.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the complaint was presented outside the applicable statutory time limit, that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and that it was not presented within such further period as the Tribunal considered reasonable.
The complaints of wrongful dismissal / breach of contract concerning notice pay were dismissed on the same limitation basis. The Tribunal found that they were presented outside the applicable statutory time limit, that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, and that they were not presented within such further period as the Tribunal considered reasonable. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment describes the claim as direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It was dismissed for want of title and jurisdiction because it was presented out of time, there were no continuing acts that were both in time and actionable, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of title and jurisdiction because it was presented outside the applicable statutory time limit, it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and it was not presented within such further period as the Tribunal considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal / breach of contract (notice pay). It was dismissed for want of title and jurisdiction because it was presented outside the applicable statutory time limit, it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and it was not presented within such further period as the Tribunal considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable
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.