Case 3201742/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Nwoko v Moody’s Shared Services UK Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201742/2020
- Decision date
- 11 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Nwoko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Ms P Nwoko’s unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judge recorded that she did not attend the preliminary hearing on 4 January 2021 and did not attend the hearing on 30 April 2021, despite being aware that it was listed and proceeding. The tribunal also found that she had failed to comply with orders made on 6 October 2020 and 4 January 2021.
The tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim on the ET1 appeared to have no prospect of success because, on the claimant’s own case, she had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. It also noted that no application had been made to amend the claim to include any other cause of action, and that the claimant had failed to comply with orders requiring her to particularise any claim for automatic unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment or victimisation. No remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out before any substantive determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37 for not actively pursuing the claim, failing to comply with tribunal orders, and having no realistic prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.