Case 2307943/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E H Cuevas Soto v Tito's Peruvian Restaurants Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307943/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E H Cuevas Soto
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order dated 20 January 2025, the Tribunal gave Mr E H Cuevas Soto an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that he had failed to attend the hearing on 20 January 2025 and that the case had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
The reasons recorded that the hearing fixed for 1 to 4 July 2025 was vacated. The Tribunal said a fair trial would not be possible in the trial window given the claimant’s lack of engagement and prosecution of his case, and that a postponement would cause considerable delay and would not be proportionate. The judgment was approved by Regional Employment Judge Khalil Date on 1 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out, but does not identify separate disposal terms for individual pleaded claims. This entry reflects the gov.uk listing category and the case-wide strike out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out, but does not identify separate disposal terms for individual pleaded claims. This entry reflects the gov.uk listing category and the case-wide strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.