Case 3313402/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Owusu-Tutu v Iceland Foods Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313402/2022
- Decision date
- 1 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Owusu-Tutu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37. It had written to the claimant on 28 March 2024 giving an opportunity by 11 April 2024 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The reasons identified in the warning letter included the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant, non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 17 September 2023, lack of active pursuit, and reasons stated in the respondent's applications. The claimant did not make written representations and did not ask for a hearing, so the claim was struck out. The hearing fixed for April 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text, but the gov.uk listing categories identify race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text, but the gov.uk listing categories identify race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text, but the gov.uk listing categories identify race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.