Case 6010897/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Oyoo v National Crime Agency — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010897/2025
- Decision date
- 13 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heydon REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Oyoo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Heydon, the Tribunal considered aspects of Mr T Oyoo's claim against the National Crime Agency. The judgment records that the claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal struck out the aspects of the claim concerning refusal or an unlawful act in relation to a flexible working request, and detriment for making a flexible working request, under the identified Employment Rights Act 1996 provisions. It also struck out discrimination, including harassment, except for the claim relating to allegations of continued surveillance of the claimant after 5 March 2025. The strike-out was made under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1) on the ground that the struck-out aspects had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The judgment struck out refusal or unlawful act in relation to a flexible working request under sections 80G/H Employment Rights Act 1996, and detriment for making a flexible working request under section 47E Employment Rights Act 1996, on the ground that they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out discrimination, including harassment, except the claim relating to allegations of continued surveillance of the claimant after 5 March 2025. The gov.uk listing categories identify disability discrimination, but the judgment text does not specify which protected characteristics attached to the struck-out discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out discrimination, including harassment, except the claim relating to allegations of continued surveillance of the claimant after 5 March 2025. The gov.uk listing categories identify race discrimination, but the judgment text does not specify which protected characteristics attached to the struck-out discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment included harassment within the discrimination aspects struck out, except the claim relating to allegations of continued surveillance of the claimant after 5 March 2025. The protected characteristic for harassment is not specified in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The discrimination or harassment claim relating to allegations of continued surveillance of the claimant after 5 March 2025 was expressly excepted from the strike-out; the judgment does not finally determine that surviving aspect. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)
- no reasonable prospect of success
- s80G/H Employment Rights Act 1996
- s47E Employment Rights Act 1996
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.