Case 6009255/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Kapodogo v Innovative Start Limited (in creditor's voluntary arrangement) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009255/2025
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Kapodogo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 10 September 2025 warning that it was considering striking out part of the claim. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why that part should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply.
Employment Judge Mr. A. Spencer was satisfied that the grounds for striking out that part of the claim under Rule 38 applied and that strike-out would accord with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because of lack of qualifying service, while the rest of the claim was not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because of lack of qualifying service. It states that the rest of the claim is not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.