Case 1401025/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Collins Mr R Sparrow Miss L Stork v Mark Joel and Julia Joel and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401025/2018
- Decision date
- 10 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Dated
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss L Collins Mr R Sparrow Miss L Stork
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims. The reasons state that, by a letter dated 27 September 2019, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claims should not be struck out.
The stated grounds were that the claimants had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 29 August 2019 and that the claims had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations or request a hearing, and the claims were therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims are struck out; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claims are struck out; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims are struck out; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claims are struck out; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.