Case 3201434/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Karl C’Tunge v Oxfam — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201434/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Karl C’Tunge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 24 August 2023, before Employment Judge Gardiner sitting alone at East London Hearing Centre, the claimant did not attend and the respondent was represented by Ms K Hosking of counsel. The Tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaints of harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 at that hearing.
The Tribunal struck out those complaints under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. As a result, there were no live complaints left to determine and the final hearing listed for 10, 11 and 12 January 2024 was vacated. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The Tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of harassment contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010 under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.