Case 2411245/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J M Mampuya v TC Facilities Management Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411245/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J M Mampuya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 2 May 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr J M Mampuya an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. In his letter of 23 May 2024, the claimant advanced representations in support of continuing the claims, but acknowledged that the Tribunal would be "pushing the boundaries" by allowing them to proceed.
The Tribunal recorded that, in substance, the claimant had potential claims in the County Court or High Court, but was reluctant to bring them there because of the legal advice he had received and/or the cost of legal representation. The Tribunal said that those matters were not relevant to whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
By letter of 29 May 2024, the respondent maintained its position that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed and struck out the claims pursuant to rule 37(1) of the Tribunal's rules of procedure. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause(s) of action. It states only that the claims were struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1) of the Tribunal's rules of procedure
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.