Case 2207105/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr AJ Boino de Souza v Osteria San Lorenzo Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207105/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr AJ Boino de Souza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied on 2 March 2022 to postpone the hearing listed for 9 March 2022. In support of that application, the tribunal noted that the respondent had made numerous attempts to contact the claimant about preparation for the hearing, but the claimant had not replied and had also not complied with the tribunal's directions for preparation. The tribunal further noted that it had received no recent correspondence from the claimant, including no objection to the postponement application.
The tribunal concluded that it appeared the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim. On 8 March 2022 it wrote to the claimant stating that it was considering striking out the claim because it was not being actively pursued, and invited any objection in writing within 14 days or a request for a hearing to explain the position.
No reply was received from the claimant. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim in its entirety on the basis that it was not being actively pursued. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the underlying particulars of the claim, but the GOV.UK listing categories for the case include contract of employment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the substantive allegations, but the GOV.UK listing categories for the case include unlawful deduction from wages. | 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.