Case 1403909/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Dyer Mr L Ward Mr G Davey Mr B McCarthy Mr I Goodman v TMF Scaffolding Services And Safety Netting Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403909/2019
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Dyer Mr L Ward Mr G Davey Mr B McCarthy Mr I Goodman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 5 February 2020, Employment Judge Roper asked the claimants to confirm whether they had applied to the Redundancy Payments Office to process their minimum rights on the insolvency of their employer and whether they intended to proceed with their claims. They were asked to respond by 12 February 2020, but they did not do so.
By a further letter dated 22 February 2020, the tribunal notified the claimants that Employment Judge Harper was considering striking out the claims and gave them 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 claimants again did not make written representations or request a hearing by the deadline of 28 February 2020.
Employment Judge Bax held that, because the claimants had not responded to either letter, they were not actively pursuing their claims. The claims were therefore struck out under rule 37, and the hearing listed for 4 March 2020 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claims after the claimants did not respond to the tribunal's letters dated 5 February 2020 and 22 February 2020 and were found not to be actively pursuing the case. The reasons do not separately analyse this claim head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claims after the claimants did not respond to the tribunal's letters dated 5 February 2020 and 22 February 2020 and were found not to be actively pursuing the case. The reasons do not separately analyse this claim head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claims after the claimants did not respond to the tribunal's letters dated 5 February 2020 and 22 February 2020 and were found not to be actively pursuing the case. The reasons do not separately analyse this claim head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claims after the claimants did not respond to the tribunal's letters dated 5 February 2020 and 22 February 2020 and were found not to be actively pursuing the case. The reasons do not separately analyse this claim head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.