Case 3300338/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Elaigwu v Martine Fante t/a MF Healthcare — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300338/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Elaigwu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment records that, by letter dated 26 June 2023, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that he had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 March 2023 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The judgment does not set out any findings on the substantive merits of the pleaded claims. It is therefore a procedural disposal only, and the text does not record any compensation, basic award, or other monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The text does not separate outcomes by individual claim head, so this records the outcome for the pleaded breach of contract claim as part of the struck-out claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The text does not separate outcomes by individual claim head, so this records the outcome for the pleaded public interest disclosure claim as part of the struck-out claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The text does not separate outcomes by individual claim head, so this records the outcome for the pleaded unfair dismissal claim as part of the struck-out claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The text does not separate outcomes by individual claim head, so this records the outcome for the pleaded unlawful deduction from wages claim as part of the struck-out claim. | 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.