Case 3306283/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Mamoon v OKA Direct Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306283/2024
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Mamoon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Richard Wood on 3 September 2025, heard by CVP. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr H Mamoon, was present in person and the respondent, OKA Direct Limited, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Its reason was jurisdictional: it decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims because the claimant was bound by a moratorium on bringing or continuing proceedings against the respondent contained in a Company Voluntary Arrangement.
No merits findings are recorded in the extracted judgment, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment does not separately set out any monetary components or legal tests beyond the moratorium point.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed this claim, together with all other claims, because it decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear them due to a moratorium in a Company Voluntary Arrangement. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed this claim, together with all other claims, because it decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear them due to a moratorium in a Company Voluntary Arrangement. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.