Case 2201792/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ikeji v Civil Service Commission and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201792/2023
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Connolly Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Ikeji
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public video hearing on 10 August 2023, Employment Judge S Connolly dealt with a strike-out application in Mr A Ikeji's case against the Civil Service Commission, Gisela Stuart and Ian Prosser. The tribunal held that the Claimant's claims against the Second Respondent and Third Respondent had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out.
The tribunal also struck out the Claimant's claim against the First Respondent so far as it related to Disclosure 1, again on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claim against the First Respondent in relation to Disclosure 2 was allowed to proceed, so the judgment only determined those parts of the case identified in the strike-out order. The judgment was sent to the parties on 8 December 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim against the Second Respondent was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim against the Third Respondent was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim against the First Respondent in relation to Disclosure 1 was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.