Case 1400891/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Ltd and Tempay Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400891/2015
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese linked claims by Mr Joaquim Sebestiao D'Souza and others against Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Ltd and Tempay Ltd were considered for strike out. By a letter dated 27 February 2023, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claims in full. The extracted judgment records no merits determination and no monetary award, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 31 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | The extracted judgment text does not state the substantive head of claim; this category is taken from the Gov.UK listing context. The claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not state the substantive head of claim; this category is taken from the Gov.UK listing context. The claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment text does not state the substantive head of claim; this category is taken from the Gov.UK listing context. The claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. | 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.