Case 2302911/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Iyamah v London Underground Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302911/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Iyamah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal recorded that the respondent's name is London Underground Limited.
The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The breach of contract complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine it while the claimant remained in employment.
The final hearing listed for 20 and 21 January 2025 was cancelled. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and strikes it out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint because the claimant remained in employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.