Case 2205640/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr CI Ohiri v Clipfine Limited and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 2205640/2020
Decision date: 6 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Isaacson

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr CI Ohiri

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The second respondent, Riverside Construction (Essex) Limited, did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge Isaacson therefore issued judgment in default against the second respondent on the material then available.

The judgment records that the issues were complex and that the claim against the first respondent, Clipfine Limited, still needed to be determined. It also states that the extent of the second respondent's liability would be determined after the open preliminary hearing and final hearing, so the decision was not a final assessment of the substantive merits against both respondents.

The second respondent was to receive notice of hearings and would only be permitted to participate to the extent allowed by the judge at the open preliminary hearing and final hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Judgment in default was entered against the second respondent because it failed to file an ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal said the issues were complex and that the claim against the first respondent still needed to be determined; the extent of the second respondent's liability was to be decided after the open preliminary hearing and final hearing.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.