Case 2216701/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fatubarin v Universal Commercial Guarding — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216701/2024
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fatubarin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 21 November 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr S Fatubarin an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated concerns were that he had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 5 September 2024, including failing to send the Respondent a schedule of loss, failing to confirm by 1 November 2024 that he had complied with the other directions in that order, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Fatubarin responded on 28 November 2024 saying, 'Please do not strike out my case as I intend to pursue to its conclusion. I am requesting that the schedule of losses will be disclosed at the hearing.' He did not propose to send a schedule of loss to the Respondent promptly, and did not confirm that he had complied with, or would comply with, the remaining directions in the 5 September 2024 order. He also did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal found that he had failed to make sufficient representations why the claim should not be struck out. It therefore struck out the claim under rule 37. The hearing listed for 22 January 2025 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not separate out individual heads of claim; it states that 'the claim is struck out'. The case context identifies race discrimination as one of the claims. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate out individual heads of claim; it states that 'the claim is struck out'. The case context identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.