Case 8000820/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000820/2025 Held by Video Conference Call in Aberdeen on September 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr A Onojah v D Leisure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000820/2025
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000820/2025 Held by Video Conference Call in Aberdeen on September 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr A Onojah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Onojah, brought race discrimination and wage-related complaints arising from his employment as a cleaner. The tribunal held that alleged race discrimination before 6 November 2024 was out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed those claims. In the wage-related section, it also recorded that any paternity leave complaint was considerably out of time and noted that the claimant had not met the 26-week qualifying period when he first sought leave.
The later race allegation concerning 26 December 2024 was struck out under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success. Applying the cautionary approach in Hassan, Anyanwu, Ahir and Mechkarov, the judge said the claimant had not identified comparators or facts pointing to race as the reason for the treatment complained of, and that the 26 December incident did not itself show an obvious racial element.
On the remaining wage dispute, the judge said the issue was confined to three days in December 2024. He was not satisfied that the respondent's papers conclusively resolved the factual dispute, but the claimant had not produced calculations showing what remained due. The tribunal therefore refused strike out and a deposit order, and directed that the wages claim proceed to a final hearing. The respondent's papers said it recognised liability for statutory guarantee pay of £156 and accrued holiday pay of £34.32, but no tribunal award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental leave | The tribunal said any paternity leave claim was considerably out of time and noted that, when the claimant first sought paternity leave, he had not completed the 26-week qualifying period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination acts said to have occurred before 6 November 2024 were held to be time-barred; the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The allegation relating to 26 December 2024 was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success; the tribunal held the claimant had not pleaded facts from which race could be inferred. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The remaining dispute about three days' pay in December 2024 was not finally determined and was directed to proceed to a final hearing; the tribunal refused strike out and a deposit order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37 strike out
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd two-stage test
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Mechkarov v Citi Bank NA
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- just and equitable extension of time
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.