Case 1400884/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Cunha and others v Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Ltd and Tempay Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400884/2015
- Decision date
- 31 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment covers claims by Mr Vicente Cunha, Mr David Menino Rego and Mrs Sunita Andriana Rodrigues against Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Ltd and Tempay Ltd (in voluntary liquidation). By letter dated 15 August 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Livesey therefore struck out the claims on 31 August 2023. The judgment records no findings on liability and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | The judgment does not identify the substantive legal basis in the reasons text; the classification follows the case context/gov.uk listing category for this case. The order states that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued and the claimants did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the substantive legal basis in the reasons text; the classification follows the case context/gov.uk listing category for this case. The order states that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued and the claimants did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the substantive legal basis in the reasons text; the classification follows the case context/gov.uk listing category for this case. The order states that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued and the claimants did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.