Case 2301006/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M I Abdul-Mummie v Under 5’s Project and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301006/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M I Abdul-Mummie
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Miss M I Abdul-Mummie's claims against Under 5's Project and Croner Group Limited, the tribunal issued a strike-out judgment after giving the claimant an opportunity, by letter dated 16 June 2022, to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order sent on 7 February 2022 and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Accordingly, the tribunal struck out the discrimination claims and any other claims under the Equality Act 2010. The reasons state that the unfair dismissal claim could proceed, so that claim was not determined on its merits in this decision.
No financial remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment says the discrimination claims were struck out after the claimant failed to make representations or request a hearing following the 16 June 2022 letter. It does not break out separate factual findings for each discrimination head; this entry reflects the race discrimination claim identified in the case metadata. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment says the discrimination claims were struck out after the claimant failed to make representations or request a hearing following the 16 June 2022 letter. It does not break out separate factual findings for each discrimination head; this entry reflects the religion or belief discrimination claim identified in the case metadata. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
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.