Case 1400936/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 1400936/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Dias's claim against Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Ltd, Tempay Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), Wincanton Group Ltd and DHL Services Ltd was struck out. By a letter dated 17 June 2020, the tribunal gave her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because she had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 14 May 2020 and because the case had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Livesey struck out the claim on 25 June 2020. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying agency worker, unlawful deduction from wages, or working time allegations, and it records no monetary award. The case management preliminary hearing listed for 24 July 2020 did not proceed.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | The judgment does not set out the merits of this claim. It records that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 14 May 2020, had not actively pursued the case, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 17 June 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the merits of this claim. It records that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 14 May 2020, had not actively pursued the case, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 17 June 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out the merits of this claim. It records that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 14 May 2020, had not actively pursued the case, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 17 June 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
The 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.
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.