Case 1403548/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Little v Crowdsense Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403548/2022
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Little
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the First Respondent was in compulsory liquidation and that, on 1 March 2023, the claimant was told the claim could not proceed without the permission of the Court. The claimant was advised to decide whether he would apply for permission and was warned that a judge would review the position after six months.
On 7 September 2023, the claimant was asked for an update on whether he had applied for permission, but no reply was received. By letter dated 2 October 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and because it had not 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 claim against the First Respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing category identifies the claim as unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment itself only states that the claim against the First Respondent was struck out and does not set out the underlying wage allegations. | 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.