Case 1800066/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Genzebu Mr A Taher Mr P Dayabaran v Harlow Pizza Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800066/2020
- Decision date
- 27 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Genzebu Mr A Taher Mr P Dayabaran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment. The Tribunal recorded that by letter dated 9 April 2020 the claimants were given an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because they had not complied with the Tribunal's directions of 2 March and 17 March 2020 and had not been actively pursuing the case.
The Tribunal found that the claimants failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Shepherd ordered that the claim be struck out. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 after the claimants did not comply with the Tribunal's directions dated 2 and 17 March 2020 and did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 9 April 2020. The PDF header lists case numbers 1800066/2020, 1800067/2020 and 1800064/2020. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.