Case 3310732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Gilbert Miss L Abdullahi v Mint People — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310732/2022
- Decision date
- 24 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Gilbert Miss L Abdullahi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 June 2023, the Tribunal gave Mr J Gilbert and Miss L Abdullahi an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why their claims should not be struck out because they had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 9 March 2023 and had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment does not set out the substantive allegations beyond the GOV.UK listing categories for the joined case, which were disability discrimination and race discrimination.
The claimants did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims and recorded that the hearing listed for 4 to 6 September 2023 would not take place. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment only records that the claims were struck out. This claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category for the joined case; the judgment itself does not spell out the underlying allegation. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The extracted judgment only records that the claims were struck out. This claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category for the joined case; the judgment itself does not spell out the underlying allegation. | 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.