Case 6017677/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Jaiden Owusu-Banahene v One 100 Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017677/2025
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Searley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jaiden Owusu-Banahene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was submitted on 13 May 2025. The respondent did not present an ET3. The case was listed for final hearing on 15 October 2025, but neither party attended. The claimant notified the Tribunal that he was unable to attend, but did not provide a reason for non-attendance.
In a case management order dated 15 October 2025, Employment Judge Searley said he was considering striking out the claimant’s claim because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal’s orders and the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant was directed to set out any objections in writing or request a hearing to make objections and explain his position, with compliance due by 13 November 2025.
A copy of that order was sent to the claimant on 10 November 2025. The claimant did not comply with the direction. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that the claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. No merits findings were made on this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. No merits findings were made on this head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.