Case 2500326/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr OC. Uzomah v Durham County Council — 2023

Case reference: 2500326/2022
Decision date: 12 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge AE Pitt

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr OC. Uzomah

Respondent

Durham County Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out Mr OC. Uzomah's claim under Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 against Durham County Council. The judgment identifies the complaint as detriments following the making of a Public Interest Disclosure and states that the strike-out applied to all four detriments alleged by the claimant.

The reason for the strike-out was that the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £3,000 following a preliminary hearing on 18 November 2022, with the order sent to him on 13 December 2022, and he had failed to pay that deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 6, 7 and 8 February 2023 was vacated, and no remedy award was recorded.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment states that the complaint of detriments following the making of a Public Interest Disclosure under Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out, applying to all four detriments alleged by the claimant.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.