Case 3312640/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Donald Akhigbe v Diamond Build Group plc and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312640/2022
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Donald Akhigbe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Regional Employment Judge Foxwell at Watford on 8 and 9 April 2024. The claimant appeared in person, the first and second respondents did not appear, and the third respondent appeared in person.
The judgment records that the claims against the first and second respondents were dismissed under Rule 52 after the claimant withdrew them. The claim against the third respondent was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The result was that the claim was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims against the first and second respondents were dismissed under Rule 52 following the claimant's withdrawal of those claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claim against the third respondent was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it stood no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52
- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure
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.