Case 2303609/2021 · Employment Tribunal
V Ntiamoah v Incentive Qas Ltd and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303609/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
Parties
4 namedClaimant
V Ntiamoah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims on 14 March 2023 under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) 2013, on the basis that they were not being actively pursued. The extracted judgment gives no further substantive findings on liability, evidence, or remedy.
The decision is a short judge-alone judgment by EJ Burge. No lay members are listed in the extracted text. The judgment does not record any monetary award, and no separate remedy assessment is set out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment text does not list the individual pleaded heads of claim; this claim type is inferred from the case listing category 'Disability Discrimination'. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text does not list the individual pleaded heads of claim; this claim type is inferred from the case listing category 'Unfair Dismissal and Unlawful Deduction from Wages'. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not list the individual pleaded heads of claim; this claim type is inferred from the case listing category 'Unfair Dismissal and Unlawful Deduction from Wages'. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) 2013
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.