Case 6017238/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Odukoya v Faith Home Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017238/2024
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Odukoya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr A Odukoya, presented a complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 against Faith Home Care Limited. The hearing took place at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge Gardiner on 27 March 2025.
The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The reason given was that the Claimant did not have the required two-year qualifying period of employment under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
No monetary award was made, and the judgment does not record any separate remedy assessment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out pursuant to Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 because the Claimant did not have the required two-year qualifying period under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.