Case 6046557/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Oliseyelum Ojo v Portsmouth University NHS Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6046557/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Oliseyelum Ojo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Oliseyelum Ojo's complaint of unfair dismissal. It found that the claimant had been employed by Portsmouth University NHS Trust for less than two years and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but had not provided an acceptable reason. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings and struck out that complaint. The wrongful dismissal complaint was expressly unaffected and will continue. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring it under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal complaint was not affected and would continue; it was not adjudicated in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
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.