Case 2307707/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Asuquo v London Ambulance Service — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307707/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Asuquo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a strike-out judgment under rule 37. By a letter dated 1 August 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 30 April 2024. The claimant was asked to respond by 30 August 2024.
The claimant did not make written representations by that date and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The preliminary hearing listed for 22 January 2022 and the full merits hearing listed for 28 July 2025 to 31 July 2025 will not take place. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37 and does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37 and does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37 and does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.