Case 2201675/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Bajwa First v Children With Cancer UK Limited, Second Respondent: Mr Gary Murphy — 2025
- Case reference
- 2201675/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson’s Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Bajwa First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim, including complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and age discrimination, under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued.
The judgment records that the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant on 14 October 2025 stating that Employment Judge Woodhead was considering strike out, referring to the First Respondent's correspondence and earlier case management orders. The Claimant was given until 4pm on 21 October 2025 to object or request a hearing.
No reply had been received by the date of judgment. The Tribunal concluded that strike out was in the interests of justice and asked administration to vacate the listed preliminary and final hearings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim, including complaints of unfair dismissal, was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim, including complaints of race discrimination, was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claim, including complaints of age discrimination, was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.