Case 3202668/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Onabanjo v London Healthcare Locums Ltd T/A London Healthcare LO — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202668/2019
- Decision date
- 14 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Onabanjo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal under rule 37. It recorded that, by letter dated 7 December 2019, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 7 December 2019.
The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not follow, and did not request a hearing. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment also records that the hearing listed for 27 April 2020 would consider the wages claim only, and that by 14 February 2020 the claimant was required to send the respondent and the Tribunal a schedule setting out each sum claimed and how it was calculated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal's order dated 7 December 2019 and did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.