Case 3203109/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Owuraku v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3203109/2022
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Owuraku
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Owuraku did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not represented. The tribunal recorded that reasonable enquiries were made to ascertain the reason for his absence, but he could not be contacted. The respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal struck out and dismissed the remaining claims of disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and unpaid wages under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It was satisfied that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay caused by the claimant's failure to actively pursue the claims, and that this gave rise to a substantial risk that a fair final hearing was no longer possible. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations at the hearing or in writing and had not done so.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Remaining claim struck out and dismissed at a preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal found inordinate and inexcusable delay and a substantial risk that a fair final hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Remaining claim struck out and dismissed at a preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal found inordinate and inexcusable delay and a substantial risk that a fair final hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as one for unpaid wages; it was among the remaining claims struck out and dismissed under Rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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.