Case 2306669/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Kiggundu v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306669/2025
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Kiggundu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to Mr C Kiggundu on 26 August 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. The letter gave him an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but he did not reply.
Judge Heath was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that striking out the claim was consistent with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The reason given was that the claimant had not responded to the warning and had not provided information needed to show that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claim. The judgment therefore records that the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action; it states only that "the claim" was struck out. The tribunal found no response to the strike-out warning and no information showing jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.