Case 2500071/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Dr E Njoku and Dr S Uwhubetine v Care Quality Commission and 1 other — 2019

Case reference: 2500071/2018
Decision date: 4 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Maidment Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Dr E Njoku and Dr S Uwhubetine

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants had each been ordered to pay a deposit of £500 in respect of each of two sets of allegations following a preliminary hearing on 29 November 2018. An amended deposit order was sent on 25 January 2019 requiring payment within seven days.

On 29 January 2019 each claimant paid a single deposit of £500. At a preliminary hearing on 4 February 2019, the claimants clarified that the failure to pay two separate deposits each was deliberate, as they intended to pursue all complaints against the Second Respondent but not allegations against the First Respondent relating to the period before 1 April 2013.

The tribunal found that the deposits ordered for those claims against the First Respondent had not been paid. All complaints against the First Respondent for the period prior to 1 April 2013 were struck out under rule 39(4), while the remaining complaints were to proceed to a final hearing under separate directions.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment strikes out complaints against the First Respondent for the period prior to 1 April 2013 because ordered deposits were not paid. The substantive legal nature of those complaints is not identified in the judgment text.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.