Case 1401641/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Singh v Wills bros Ltd Pawton Dairy — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401641/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 5 February 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claimant's claims. The judgment is signed by Employment Judge Livesey and was sent to the parties on 4 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separately identify the underlying claim type; this classification follows the public case listing. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's 5 February 2025 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately identify the underlying claim type; this classification follows the public case listing. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's 5 February 2025 letter. | 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.