Case 3304151/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Ochola v Lantmannen Unibake UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304151/2018
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Ochola
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 16 September 2019, Employment Judge Tynan made a case management order requiring Mrs A Ochola to provide a signed statement, a schedule of loss, particulars supporting her discrimination claims, and evidence of the illness said to have prevented her attendance. The order required compliance by 18 October 2019 and warned that failure to comply could result in strikeout without a hearing or further consideration.
The claimant did not comply with all aspects of the order. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no findings on the merits of the pleaded discrimination claims and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with a case management order. The text does not separately set out individual heads of claim; this category is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with a case management order. The text does not separately set out individual heads of claim; this category is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with a case management order. The text does not separately set out individual heads of claim; this category is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.