Case 2300308/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Ogun v A24 Group — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300308/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Ogun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting alone, dealt only with case management and did not determine the merits of the underlying claim. In a judgment dated 21 September 2022, Employment Judge Wright recorded that the claim was struck out. The hearing listed for 28 September 2022 was vacated as a result.
The reasons explain that by letter dated 15 June 2022 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated concerns were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 19 April 2022 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not state the underlying cause of action. The Tribunal struck out the claim after the claimant failed to make representations or request a hearing in response to the letter dated 15 June 2022; the reasons given were non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 19 April 2022 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. | 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.