Case 1600219/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Mohamed Mr M Hersi v Enjoy (UK) Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600219/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Y Mohamed Mr M Hersi
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claims in case numbers 1600219/2022, 1600220/2022, 1600223/2022 and 1600224/2022. It recorded that the first respondent, ENJOY (UK) Limited, was in compulsory liquidation and that permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. It also stated that the claims against the second respondent, Matthew Wilkinson, had been struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal said that by letters dated 17 May 2023 and the letter attached to its email of 1 June 2023 it had given the claimants 14 days to provide written reasons why the claims should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. It found that the claimants had failed to give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the Tribunal ordered that the claims be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim type inferred from the case listing/gov.uk categorisation; the judgment itself records that the claims were struck out generally and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim type inferred from the case listing/gov.uk categorisation; the judgment itself records that the claims were struck out generally and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the case listing/gov.uk categorisation; the judgment itself records that the claims were struck out generally and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case listing/gov.uk categorisation; the judgment itself records that the claims were struck out generally and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
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.