Case 3203909/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Amponsah v Digital Realty UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3203909/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Amponsah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 14 February 2024, Regional Employment Judge Burgher struck out the claimant’s protected disclosure detriment and dismissal claims against Digital Realty UK Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant had not complied with the Employment Tribunal Order dated 7 September 2022 and that, after reviewing the statements and submissions made, the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal therefore disposed of both claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment records only the strike out and dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim struck out and dismissed under rule 37 for non-compliance with the Employment Tribunal Order dated 7 September 2022 and because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure dismissal claim struck out and dismissed under rule 37 for non-compliance with the Employment Tribunal Order dated 7 September 2022 and because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of the ET rules
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.