Case 3313978/2021 · Employment Tribunal
David Lwamulungi Sebunya v Chalton Alderman Demolition — 2026
- Case reference
- 3313978/2021
- Decision date
- 3 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Lwamulungi Sebunya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out David Lwamulungi Sebunya’s claim against Chalton Alderman Demolition. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the claim or record any monetary award.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 6 February 2026 warning that it was considering strike-out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because he had not complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 17 July 2023 and the claim had not been actively pursued. The letter gave him an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but he did not reply.
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment identifies the matter only as “the claim”; classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category because the judgment gives no further particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.