Seyi Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd & Anor

Seyi Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd & Anor

The respondents' decisions to terminate the claimant's contracts were not because of her religious beliefs but due to commercial and reputational risks from the social media storm; thus, no direct discrimination or harassment occurred. The claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract as she would not have played the role as required, so no damages were due. The costs award was justified given the hopelessness and unreasonable conduct of the claims, and the tribunal could consider third-party resources. The restriction on publication of hearing documents post-hearing was within the tribunal's discretion under the open justice principle.

Parties
Appellant: Seyi Omooba; First Respondent: Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (T/A Global Artists); Second Respondent: Leicester Theatre Trust Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Harassment, Breach of Contract, Costs, Use of Disclosed Documents
Employment Law Equality Law Human Rights Law Contract Law Direct Discrimination Harassment Breach of Contract Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seyi Omooba

Appellant

Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (T/A Global Artists)

First Respondent

Leicester Theatre Trust Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal and agency termination constituted direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief under Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether conduct amounted to harassment under Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether breach of contract occurred and if damages were due

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' decisions to terminate the claimant's contracts were not because of her religious beliefs but due to commercial and reputational risks from the social media storm; thus, no direct discrimination or harassment occurred. The claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract as she would not have played the role as required, so no damages were due. The costs award was justified given the hopelessness and unreasonable conduct of the claims, and the tribunal could consider third-party resources. The restriction on publication of hearing documents post-hearing was within the tribunal's discretion under the open justice principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • All grounds of appeal dismissed.
  • Costs award against claimant upheld, subject to detailed assessment.