Case 2300884/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Sarfo v Tokunbo Olagbayie — 2025
- Case reference
- 2300884/2022
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Sarfo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 8 August 2024, the Tribunal gave Miss B Sarfo an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The Tribunal recorded that she failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
The judgment therefore struck out the claim in full. No merits findings were made and no monetary remedy was awarded. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Lumby on 4 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The underlying claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not separate the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The underlying claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not separate the causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The underlying claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not separate the causes of action. | 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.