Case 1404564/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Robertshaw v Expert Logistics Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404564/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Robertshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard in private by telephone at Bristol on 5 September 2022, Employment Judge Midgley struck out the claimant's claims against Expert Logistics Ltd. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent was represented by Mr A Small, Counsel.
The written record does not set out the substantive basis for the strike-out decision. It records only the outcome that the claimant's claims were struck out, with oral reasons having been given at the hearing. The record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out. | 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.