Case 2202931/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Chukwudinma v Notting Hill Genesis — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202931/2022
- Decision date
- 3 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London Central via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Chukwudinma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at London Central via CVP on 3 November 2022 before Employment Judge D Wright sitting alone, the tribunal disposed of the claims by withdrawal. It recorded that the claim against the second respondent was dismissed upon being withdrawn, and that the wrongful dismissal claim and the claim for unlawful deductions in relation to final pay were also dismissed upon being withdrawn. The judgment contains no substantive findings on liability for those claims.
The tribunal also made a costs order against the claimant. It found that the claimant had brought the amendment application late and ordered him to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by that unreasonable behaviour, summarily assessed at £1,980 inclusive of VAT, to be paid within 14 days. The tribunal separately ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's reasonable costs of dealing with the amendment, to be assessed at the conclusion of the final hearing if not agreed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismisses the claim against the second respondent upon withdrawal, but it does not identify the underlying legal claim type in the extracted text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed upon being withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unlawful deductions in relation to the claimant's final pay was dismissed upon being withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,980
- across all upheld claims
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.