Case 2304972/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J-P James-Ferguson v Oscar Engineering Limited t/a Oscar Acoustics — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304972/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J-P James-Ferguson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 20 January 2025 before Employment Judge Wright at Croydon via CVP. The claimant did not attend and provided no written representations. The hearing had been listed because the respondent had applied to strike out the claim on 16 May 2024, and the tribunal had previously written to the claimant on 11 June 2024 and again on 19 July 2024 asking for a response.
Because the claimant did not attend, the tribunal dismissed his claim in accordance with Rule 47. For the avoidance of doubt, it recorded that the respondent's application under Rule 39(d) would also have been successful. The written judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying allegations, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the written reasons; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal said the respondent's Rule 39(d) strike-out application would also have succeeded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the written reasons; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal said the respondent's Rule 39(d) strike-out application would also have succeeded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the written reasons; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal said the respondent's Rule 39(d) strike-out application would also have succeeded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 39(d)
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.