Cases
Miss C Dublin v Greenacre Recruitment Ltd and others 2216649/2023
Adeola successfully represented the local Authority in the substantial litigation (not the application for costs). Adeola’s oral and written submissions resulted in a full dismissal against the Local Authority.
FT V Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency & others ET 1801453/2023 & 1801453/2023
Adeola was sought after for her proven expertise and excellent track record in obtaining and defending costs applications. In this case Adeola’s submissions resulted in the ET making an adverse costs award against a Claimant in a case where disability and sexual orientation discrimination had been alleged.
Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham [2025] EAT 14
Adeola drafted the grounds of appeal and worked collaboratively with senior counsel Paras Gorasia to argue that the Claimant’s injury to feelings award was manifestly excessive. Both counsel obtained a favourable result, with the EAT also setting out important guidance as to the factors that a Tribunal may wish to consider when assessing any award for Injury to Feelings.
C Rendina v Royston Veterinary Centre Limited ET 3307459/2020
Adeola drafted the grounds of appeal and worked collaboratively with senior counsel Paras Gorasia to argue that the Claimant’s injury to feelings award was manifestly excessive. Both counsel obtained a favourable result, with the EAT also setting out important guidance as to the factors that a Tribunal may wish to consider when assessing any award for Injury to Feelings.
Dr O v GMC 2024 (MPTS case)
Adeola successfully represented a Doctor who had been erased from the Register by the General Medical Council (GMC): she was fully reinstated with no conditions. Adeola’s success included sound arguments to exclude disclosure which was distressing and irrelevant, despite being strongly contested by the GMC, the panel saw the merit in Adeola’s oral submissions.
T Reese v Krispy Kreme ET 3301456/2021
Instructed on behalf of the successful Respondent to argue that the claims of race discrimination were out of time and there was no just and equitable basis upon which to extend time.
C Moseley v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council ET 1310247/2020
Instructed on behalf of the successful Claimant. After Adeola’s thorough cross examination and persuasive submissions. the ET found that the Claimant was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after 20 years of service.