Case 2301547/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ofori v Brentford Football Club Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301547/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ofori
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letters dated 11 January 2023 and 17 July 2023, the Tribunal sought information about probate and whether a personal representative had been appointed to deal with the claimant's estate. No reply was received. On 13 September 2023 the Tribunal wrote to Ms V Ofori, the claimant's sister, referring to that correspondence and giving an opportunity to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck out. No response was received.
On 6 June 2024 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal, copying Ms Ofori, and asked for the claim to be struck out on the basis that there was no intention to proceed. The Tribunal had not heard from Ms Ofori in response to that application. Employment Judge Corrigan therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 because there was no intention to proceed with it and/or it was not being actively pursued. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records a strike-out of 'the claim' under rule 37 and does not separately address the merits of the underlying discrimination claim; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a strike-out of 'the claim' under rule 37 and does not separately address the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal claim; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | 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.