Case 2414690/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Sengoma v Sanctuary Management Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2414690/2018
- Decision date
- 29 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Sengoma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 22 May 2019, the Tribunal gave Mr Sengoma an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that he had not complied with the Tribunal’s case management orders dated 8 January 2019 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 judgment does not contain any findings on the substantive merits of the pleaded issues.
As a result of the strike-out, the preliminary hearing fixed for 30 May 2019 and the final hearing listed for 2, 3 and 4 October 2019 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim in detail; it records only that the claim was struck out for non-compliance with case management orders and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate the claims individually; it records that the claim was struck out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.