Case 3200745/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ojadi v Well Street Pizza — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200745/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ojadi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 20 April 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr D Ojadi an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were failure to comply with the Judge's order to prepare an impact statement and failure to comply with the order to prepare and send a schedule of loss to the respondent.
No response was provided. Employment Judge Burgher Date recorded that, for that reason, the claims were struck out. The judgment does not record a substantive merits determination, hearing attendance, or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's 20 April 2022 letter. The underlying claim type is taken from the case context provided for extraction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claims were struck out after no response was provided to the Tribunal's 20 April 2022 letter. The underlying claim type is taken from the case context provided for extraction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were struck out after no response was provided to the Tribunal's 20 April 2022 letter. The underlying claim type is taken from the case context provided for extraction. | 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.