Case 3201924/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Soaga v Department for Work and Pensions — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201924/2023
- Decision date
- 7 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Soaga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the hearing. The Respondent was represented by counsel. The Tribunal gave judgment that the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Tribunal Rules because of non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
Further and in the alternative, the Tribunal dismissed the claims because they were brought outside the applicable time limit and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. Further and in the alternative, the claims were dismissed as out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment does not set out separate reasoning for this claim. It states globally that the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c), with an alternative dismissal on limitation grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not set out separate reasoning for the race discrimination claim. It states globally that the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c), with an alternative dismissal because the claims were brought outside the time limit and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c) of the Tribunal Rules
- just and equitable to extend time
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.