Case 1403818/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Naylor For the v Mr Allan Roberts Counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403818/2021
- Decision date
- 15 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hogarth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Naylor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton by VHS on 7 December 2022 before Employment Judge Hogarth. The judgment records that the claims against the first respondent, Hugh Sims-Hilditch, were struck out because the tribunal found that the claimant's correct employer was the second respondent, Hildare Stud Farm Ltd.
The claims against the second respondent were also struck out. The tribunal found that Hildare Stud Farm Ltd was added as a party on 30 August 2022 and that this was out of time. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claims in time.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claims against the first respondent because the claimant's correct employer was the second respondent. The claims against the second respondent were then struck out because they were added out of time and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented them in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claims against the first respondent because the claimant's correct employer was the second respondent. The claims against the second respondent were then struck out because they were added out of time and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented them in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claims against the first respondent because the claimant's correct employer was the second respondent. The claims against the second respondent were then struck out because they were added out of time and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented them in time. | 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.
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.