Case 6023504/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Agyeman v Sodexo Limited OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING AT LONDON CENTRAL ON 5 AUGUST 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023504/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Agyeman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 5 August 2025, Employment Judge Nicolle considered the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against Sodexo Limited. The tribunal held that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time period under sections 111(2) and 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal further found that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within the applicable time period. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the judgment notes that written reasons could be requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the applicable time period under sections 111(2) and 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented in time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.