Case 3303610/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Obuchowski v Fresh Direct (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303610/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Obuchowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out two complaints of direct age discrimination under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The first complaint was that the claimant was dismissed because of his age; the second was that he was denied the opportunity to undertake a training course because of his age.
Before strike-out, the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £50.00 by 26 February 2020 in respect of each complaint. The order was sent on 29 January 2020. The tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to pay either deposit.
No merits findings were made on the substance of the age discrimination allegations, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment therefore records strike-out only, rather than any determination that either complaint was proved or dismissed after a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint that the claimant was dismissed because of his age. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint that the claimant was denied the opportunity to undertake a training course because of his age. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 39(4) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.