Case 2301410/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Deborah Fakayo aka Ms Debra Fakayo Ms Sarah Fakayo v London Borough of Lambeth Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301410/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Deborah Fakayo aka Ms Debra Fakayo Ms Sarah Fakayo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 2 November 2022 before Employment Judge D Wright, sitting alone, neither claimant attended. The clerk spoke to Ms D Fakayo by telephone and was told that she had not received the notice of hearing and could not join because she did not have access to the internet. The clerk was unable to reach the respondent and received an out-of-office autoreply to an email.
The judgment records that Employment Judge Robinson had made an Unless Order on 21 September 2022. That order required the claimants, by 21 October 2022, to explain their non-attendance at the earlier tribunal hearing, explain their non-compliance with tribunal letters and orders of 20 May, 7 June and 13 June 2022, provide written medical evidence if health was relied on, explain how they satisfied the two-year continuity of service requirement for unfair dismissal, and give details of what their claims were for, how much they were claiming and how those amounts had been calculated.
The Claimants did not comply with that order. The judgment therefore records that the claims under case numbers 2301410/2022, 2301492/2022 and 2301493/2022 stood dismissed without further order. The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the claims and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not determine the merits of this claim. It records that the claims in case numbers 2301410/2022, 2301492/2022 and 2301493/2022 stood dismissed automatically because the Claimants did not comply with the Unless Order dated 21 September 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of this claim. The Unless Order specifically required the Claimants to explain how they satisfied the two-year continuity of service requirement for unfair dismissal, and the claim was dismissed automatically when they did not comply. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not determine the merits of this claim. It was dismissed automatically with the other claims after the Claimants failed to provide the claim details, amounts claimed and calculations required by the Unless Order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not determine the merits of this claim. It was dismissed automatically with the other claims after the Claimants failed to provide the claim details, amounts claimed and calculations required by the Unless Order. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.