Case 3303746/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Nizeyimana v Perkins Engines Company Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303746/2023
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr E Nizeyimana
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hutchings sat alone at Cambridge on 18 June 2024. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant had not been dismissed at the time of the claim, and the judgment also says that the claimant therefore withdrew that claim. The complaint of breach of psychological contract was dismissed because it was not a claim within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals.
The complaint of race discrimination against Perkins Engines Company Limited and Danbro Employment Umbrella Ltd was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant had not been dismissed at the time of the claim, and also says the claimant therefore withdrew this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of psychological contract was dismissed because it was not a claim within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of race discrimination was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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.