Case 2304115/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mastermind Group Ltd and Mastermind Promotion Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304115/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge PSL Housego
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that the claimant, Babafemi Olu, brought proceedings against Mastermind Group Ltd and Mastermind Promotion Ltd in the London South Employment Tribunal. The only dispositional orders recorded are procedural: the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
The judgment also states that the claims for unlawful deduction of wages, unpaid holiday pay and all other money claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded, and the judgment does not set out substantive findings on liability beyond those procedural outcomes.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. On the face of the written decision, therefore, the extracted findings are limited to the final procedural status of each claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the unpaid holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Covers the judgment's reference to 'all other money claims', which were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.