Case 2303832/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Peter Ntui v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2303832/2024
- Decision date
- 9 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Peter Ntui
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 13 May 2024 after ACAS early conciliation. The listed issues included protected disclosure detriment, direct race, sex and age discrimination, disability discrimination, victimisation, ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not complied with Tribunal Orders concerning disclosure and the provision of dates and details in the List of Issues, and had not actively pursued the claim during an important period before the final hearing. It concluded that the late provision of further information and the limited factual detail in the witness statement created prejudice to the Respondent and that a fair hearing was no longer possible within the listed trial window.
The Tribunal considered less drastic alternatives but concluded that they would not cure the prejudice given that the final hearing was due to start the next day. It struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 38(1)(c) and Rule 38(1)(d), and vacated the hearing listed for 10 to 13 February 2026.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The List of Issues identified protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal allegations; the judgment struck out the claims in their entirety for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders and because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The List of Issues identified direct race discrimination; the judgment did not determine the merits and struck out the claims in their entirety. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The List of Issues identified direct sex discrimination; the judgment did not determine the merits and struck out the claims in their entirety. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The List of Issues identified direct age discrimination; the judgment did not determine the merits and struck out the claims in their entirety. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The List of Issues identified direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments; the judgment did not determine the merits and struck out the claims in their entirety. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The List of Issues identified victimisation; the judgment did not determine the merits and struck out the claims in their entirety. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
- proportionality test
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.