Case 3200595/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Onyema v Caris Ventures Ltd & Joel Freeman — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200595/2018
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Onyema
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 January 2020, the tribunal gave Mr O Onyema an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why his complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, failure to pay notice pay, unlawful deductions of wages and holiday pay should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that he did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Russell therefore struck out the complaints under rule 37 on 5 March 2020. The judgment does not include any findings on the merits of the claims and does not record any monetary remedy or award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint described as failure to pay notice pay. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint described as unlawful deductions of wages. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint described as holiday pay. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 strike out
- not actively pursued
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.