Case 3206905/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Ojini v Greencore Food To Go Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206905/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Ojini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment of 1 September 2023 records that the claimant, Mr P Ojini, had claims listed on the GOV.UK decision page as race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against Greencore Food To Go. By letter dated 3 August 2023, the tribunal gave him an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the tribunal orders dated 23 May 2022 and 6 June 2023 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Ojini did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim and recorded that the hearing listed for 6 to 8 September 2023 would not take place. The decision was given by Acting Regional Employment Judge Russell.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The short judgment does not separate the reasons by claim; it strikes out the claim after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the tribunal's 3 August 2023 letter. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment does not separate the reasons by claim; it strikes out the claim after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the tribunal's 3 August 2023 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment does not separate the reasons by claim; it strikes out the claim after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the tribunal's 3 August 2023 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
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.