Case 1602373/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Omahony v Audere Medical Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602373/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Omahony
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's Age Discrimination complaint. It recorded that the claimant had not set out any Age Discrimination claim and that the complaint could not sensibly be responded to. The tribunal also noted that, by letter dated 06 December 2022, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the complaint should not be struck out.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, explaining why the complaint should not be struck out, and did not request a hearing. The complaint of Age Discrimination was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim or claims remained listed for hearing on 16 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal struck out the age discrimination complaint because the claimant had not set out any Age Discrimination claim that could sensibly be responded to. A letter dated 06 December 2022 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing, but he did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | Age | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.