Case 1401871/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Muyembe v HGP Architects Limited and 3 others — 2022

Case reference: 1401871/2022
Decision date: 22 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Livesey Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Mr P Muyembe

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By judgment dated 18 September 2022, Employment Judge Livesey struck out the claims against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, Ms Vivienne Conway, Mr Matthew Williams and Mr Ed Hussey. The Tribunal said it had given the claimant an opportunity, by letter dated 2 August 2022, to make representations or request a hearing on why those claims should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the claims against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were struck out. The judgment does not record any monetary award.

The claimant's remaining claim against HGP Architects Limited was left listed for hearing on 30 November 2022.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claims against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were struck out because the Tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The judgment does not specify the underlying cause(s) of action in the extracted text.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.