Case 3322456/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Nwajagu - Counsel For the v Mr W Dobson - Counsel — 2018
- Case reference
- 3322456/2016
- Decision date
- 30 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henry Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Nwajagu - Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Watford on 15 August 2018 before Employment Judge Henry, the claimant's discrimination claims based on age, disability and race were dismissed because the claimant withdrew them. The judgment records no substantive findings on liability for those discrimination complaints beyond the withdrawal.
The respondent sought to strike out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(d) and (e) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1996. The tribunal held that it did not find it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing, and did not find inordinate and/or inexcusable delay.
The tribunal also found that there had not arisen a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible, or that there would be serious prejudice to the respondent. For that reason, the claim for unfair dismissal was not struck out and was allowed to continue. No monetary remedy was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused to strike out the claim under Rule 37(d) and (e); the unfair dismissal claim continued. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(d) and (e) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1996
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.