F Taiwo v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust: 2303113/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and unlawful deduction of wages (holiday pay) are struck out pursuant to Rules 38(1)(a), 38(1)(c), and 38(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.[2]Each claim is jurisdictionally out of time, and the Claimant failed to establish any basis for an extension. Secondly, each claim lacks a sufficient evidential or factual foundation and has no reasonable prospect of success. Finally, the Claimant's persistent non-compliance with Tribunal orders has rendered a fair trial impossible, and no lesser sanction would be proportionate. APPROVED Judge M Aspinall Wednesday, 12th November 2025 Judgment sent to parties on 13th November 2025 For the Tribunal Office Written reasons: Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, full written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing, or a written request is received - by the Tribunal - from either party within 14 days of the date on which this written record of the decision is sent/issued. Publication and public access to judgments and decisions: Judgments, decisions and reasons of Employment Tribunals are published in full shortly after the judgment or decision has been sent to the parties in the case. These can be found at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions Recording and transcription: Where a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, verified or approved by a Judge. More information can be found online in the Joint Presidential Practice Direction on Recording and Transcription of hearings, and in the accompanying guidance. Both can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/ employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions Reference number 2303113-2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS London South Employment Tribunal Claimant: Francis Taiwo Respondent: Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Costs Judgment The Claimant shall pay to the Respondent the sum of £7,500 by way of costs pursuant to Rules 73(1)(a), 74(2) and 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, such sum to be paid in accordance with the instalment terms set out in this judgment. Introduction[1]By application dated 11 December 2025, the Respondent seeks an order for costs against the Claimant pursuant to Rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The application was made following my judgment dated 12 November 2025, in which I struck out the Claimant's claims in their entirety.[2]The Claimant was invited to respond to the application and did so by letter dated 19 December 2025. Neither party has requested a hearing. I am satisfied that the application can be determined fairly on the papers and I proceed to do so. The Legal Framework[3]Under Rule 74(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the Tribunal must consider making a costs order or a preparation time order where it considers that a party or that party's representative has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of them, or the way that the proceedings, or part of them, have been conducted, or that any claim, response or reply had no reasonable prospect of success.[4]The discretion to make such an order is broad but must be exercised judicially, with reference to the facts found. Findings Already Made on Liability[5]In my strike-out judgment of 12 November 2025, I made several express findings which are directly relevant to this application.[6]I found that all the Claimant's claims were presented outside the applicable limitation periods. The effective date of termination was 23 October 2023. The primary three-month limitation deadline expired on 22 January 2024. The Claimant did not commence ACAS Early Conciliation until 11 March 2024, some 49 days after the time limit had expired. The effective presentation date of 10 April 2024 was therefore 78 days out of time. I found that no statutory basis for extending time had been established under either the "not reasonably Reference number 2303113-2024 practicable" test applicable to the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims or the "just and equitable" test applicable to the discrimination claims.[7]I found that the discrimination claims were founded upon a factual premise that was demonstrably false. The Claimant's case rested entirely on the allegation that he, a black man, was dismissed for hitting a service user whereas a white female comparator "was not dismissed" for having sex with a service user. The comparator's disciplinary outcome letter, which was undisputed documentary evidence in the bundle, proved that allegation to be false. She was found guilty of gross misconduct and the panel's decision was that had she remained in employment she would have been summarily dismissed. She faced the identical sanction. She was not treated more leniently; she resigned before that sanction could be formally imposed.[8]I found that the unfair dismissal claim was fatally undermined by the Claimant's own admission at the disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing notes recorded that after viewing the CCTV footage, the Claimant stated: "I shouldn't have pushed him." This was an unequivocal admission of conduct amounting to gross misconduct in the context of a secure psychiatric hospital setting.[9]I found that the Claimant had persistently failed to comply with the Tribunal's case management orders. Employment Judge Macey's order of 29 April 2025 required particulars by 20 May 2025; that order was not complied with.