Case 2414013/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Adewusi v UNBXD Studios FAO: William Niven — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414013/2021
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Adewusi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 1 September 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr O Adewusi an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that he failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing in response.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The reasons given are procedural only and do not include any findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded complaints. The judgment is dated 18 October 2022 and was sent to the parties on 31 October 2022.
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 not actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this complaint separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as not actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this complaint separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as not actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this complaint separately. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.