Case 6002651/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Stephanie Nwaigwe v ID Medical Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002651/2024
- Decision date
- 15 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stephanie Nwaigwe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningStephanie Nwaigwe's case was heard remotely via the Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge Heap sitting alone. The parties consented to a remote hearing, and the judgment records that no face-to-face hearing was held because no-one requested one and the issues could be determined remotely.
The Tribunal's sole substantive finding was jurisdictional. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant's claim against ID Medical Limited, and the claim was accordingly struck out. The written judgment does not identify the underlying legal cause of action beyond referring to it as the Claimant's claim.
No remedy was awarded. The record also 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 of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment states only that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant's claim against the Respondent and that it was struck out. The underlying cause of action is not specified in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.