Case 1400556/2022 · Employment Tribunal
- NO APPEARANCE FOR THE v - No Appearance — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400556/2022
- Decision date
- 13 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- NO APPEARANCE FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBoth claimants brought claims for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay against the respondent. The case was listed for hearing on 8 July 2022 before Employment Judge Cadney sitting alone. No appearance was made for either side, and no response had been entered by the respondent, which would ordinarily have allowed default judgment.
A company search showed that All 4 Leisure Ltd had been dissolved on 5 July 2022. The tribunal recorded that, because the respondent no longer existed as a legal entity, judgment could not be entered against it. The judge explained that the claimants would need to apply to Companies House to restore the respondent to the register before the claims could be pursued further.
The judgment therefore provided that the claims would stand dismissed without further order unless either claimant notified the tribunal in writing within 14 days that he intended to apply to restore the respondent company to the register. No merits findings were made and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records claims for unpaid wages. No default judgment could be entered because the respondent company had been dissolved before the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records claims for unpaid holiday pay. No default judgment could be entered because the respondent company had been dissolved before the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.