Case 6019708/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mfuri v Nestle UK Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019708/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mfuri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard at Leeds by CVP on 13 January 2026, Employment Judge Robertson sat alone. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, finding that the response had not been presented out of time. The claimant withdrew his complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unlawful disability discrimination, including failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, and those complaints were dismissed on withdrawal.
The judgment states that case management orders for the remaining claims appear in a separate document. Written reasons were not included in this record, and the judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unlawful disability discrimination, including failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.