Case 6016337/2025 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v A Ononiwu and T Chenmbri — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016337/2025
- Decision date
- 25 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claim number 6016337/2025 against Adaora Ononiwu and ticked boxes indicating race and/or religion or belief discrimination. The claim form also contained narrative which the tribunal described as incomprehensible or incoherent, including references to alleged harassment, racial prejudice, a data breach and hate speech. The tribunal noted that a further details document referred to video evidence dated 28 November 2021, suggesting any conduct referred to occurred significantly outside the applicable time limit.
The claimant also brought claim number 6023609/2025 against Tinashe Chenmbri and ticked the box indicating a whistleblowing claim. The tribunal again found the pleaded narrative incomprehensible and incoherent, and said that on any objective reading it was not possible to ascertain any actionable claim against the second respondent or the University of Reading within the tribunal's jurisdiction. A later document referred to events in April 2022, which the tribunal also identified as significantly outside the time for bringing an actionable claim.
The University of Reading was not named as a respondent, but its address had been used for the named respondents. The University stated that neither the claimant nor the second respondent were or had been employees of the University, and that the first respondent had only held worker status between 1 June and 30 November 2022. The claimant was asked by the tribunal to provide correct addresses for the respondents and explain why the claims fell within employment tribunal jurisdiction, but no response was received by the deadline and neither the claimant nor the named respondents attended the preliminary hearing.
Employment Judge Wyeth concluded that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints, that it was impossible to ascertain an actionable claim from the claim forms, and that the claims were not matters that could be advanced in the employment tribunal. The claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed in their entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant ticked race and/or religion or belief discrimination in claim 6016337/2025. The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claims in their entirety because it had no jurisdiction and could not ascertain an actionable claim within its jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant ticked race and/or religion or belief discrimination in claim 6016337/2025. The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claims in their entirety because it had no jurisdiction and could not ascertain an actionable claim within its jurisdiction. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | The whistleblowing box was ticked in claim 6023609/2025, which was heard together with claim 6016337/2025. The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claims in their entirety because it had no jurisdiction and could not ascertain an actionable claim within its jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
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.