Case 3200050/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Seth Aboagye Brobbey v The Skills Centre London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200050/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Illing Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Seth Aboagye Brobbey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at East London Hearing Centre on 2 April 2025 before Employment Judge C Illing. The claimant did not attend, and the respondent was represented by Mr Simon Tibbett, Counsel. The judgment records that the hearing was in public and that reasons were given orally, with no written reasons provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) and (d). The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order and that the claim had not been actively pursued. No findings on the underlying merits of the unfair dismissal or disability discrimination issues were recorded.
No monetary award was made, and the judgment does not contain any separate remedy assessment. The decision is therefore a procedural strike-out only, without any substantive determination of liability.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal rules or an order and had not actively pursued the case. The judgment does not separate the strike-out reasoning by individual claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal rules or an order and had not actively pursued the case. The judgment does not separate the strike-out reasoning by individual claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.