Case 2303698/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Echenegi Jude Ajabor v Asda Stores Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303698/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Echenegi Jude Ajabor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that all claims in case number 2303698/2019 were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claim.
The stated reason for the withdrawal was that this case duplicated case number 2302555/2019. The judgment contains no findings on the merits of the claims and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal because the case was a duplicate of case number 2302555/2019. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal because the case was a duplicate of case number 2302555/2019. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal because the case was a duplicate of case number 2302555/2019. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal because the case was a duplicate of case number 2302555/2019. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal because the case was a duplicate of case number 2302555/2019. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal because the case was a duplicate of case number 2302555/2019. | Withdrawn |
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.