Case 3202986/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Boadu v Resourcing Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202986/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Boadu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Boadu brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, discrimination based on religion or belief, and arrears of pay against Resourcing Group. By letter dated 17 December 2019, he was warned that the tribunal was considering striking out the unfair dismissal claim because he did not have two years' continuous service, and he was given time to explain why it should not be struck out or to request a hearing. He did not respond to that letter.
The matter was later listed for a telephone hearing on 7 June 2021 to consider remedy and, by inference, whether judgment should be issued under rule 21. Neither party attended that hearing, and none of the earlier orders had been complied with. In a case management summary sent on 8 June 2021, the tribunal warned that it was considering striking out the claim for any remedy on the basis that it was not being actively pursued and ordered the claimant to explain his non-compliance and non-attendance by 21 June 2021.
The claimant did not comply with that order and did not request a hearing. The employment judge was satisfied that the claim was not being actively pursued and struck out all of the claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment also recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service to bring such a claim and therefore had no reasonable prospects of success.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Crosfill on 10 August 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim both because it was not actively pursued and because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, so it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out with the other claims under rule 37 because the matter was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out with the other claims under rule 37 because the matter was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to claims for arrears of pay; these were struck out with the other claims under rule 37 because the matter was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 21 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 2 years continuous service
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.