Case 4102570/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mahamba v Clinical Staffing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102570/2024
- Decision date
- 4 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mahamba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Mahamba did not attend the preliminary hearing on 14 May 2024 and was not represented. After that hearing, the Tribunal asked him to confirm by 28 May 2024 whether he agreed to the respondent's application for strike out to be dealt with on written submissions and, if he opposed it, to explain why. No reply was received. A reminder was sent on 5 June 2024, and on 13 June 2024 the Tribunal gave him a further opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing by 27 June 2024; there was still no response.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not make findings on the merits of the pleaded heads of claim and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not separately determine the merits of this head. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not separately determine the merits of this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not separately determine the merits of this head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.