Case 2213311/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mantelen Ntos v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2213311/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Mantelen Ntos
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a no-hearing decision by Employment Judge Goodman on 10 February 2025. The tribunal said the claim appeared to be a duplicate of claim no. 2201611/2024, in which the claimant had already obtained judgment against the respondent, Quarter Group Ltd.
A hearing listed for 10 December 2024 had been postponed when neither side appeared and relisted for 11 February 2025. The claimant was asked to confirm that this claim was not a duplicate and warned that it would be dismissed if he did not respond. He did not reply.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the claim was not actively pursued and struck it out under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. No substantive findings on the underlying employment claims or any remedy were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal said the claim appeared to be a duplicate of claim no. 2201611/2024, in which the claimant had already obtained judgment against his employer. After the claimant did not reply to the tribunal's request for confirmation that this case was not a duplicate, the tribunal concluded that it was not actively pursued and struck it out under rule 38(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.