Case 1405405/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Josh Badge & Simon Privett v Casual Dining Services Ltd (dissolved) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1405405/2020
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Josh Badge & Simon Privett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed at the Exeter branch of Café Rouge, one of the brands run by the first respondent. Following the closure of restaurants during the Covid-19 pandemic, the first respondent did not survive the economic effects and the claimants were made redundant. They brought claims for a protective award on the basis that consultation with elected representatives had not occurred as asserted.
The first respondent was dissolved on 08 October 2021, so the tribunal held that no judgment could be made against it. The Secretary of State had been joined only because it might have been liable to meet payment if an order had been made against the employer.
Mr Badge's claim was dismissed for non-attendance, because it was not actively pursued, and because it had no reasonable prospect of success. Mr Privett's claim against the Secretary of State had already been dismissed on withdrawal, and his remaining claim against the first respondent was dismissed because there was no respondent left against whom an order could be made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claims were for a protective award arising from alleged lack of consultation over redundancies. Mr Badge's claim was dismissed for non-attendance, because it was not actively pursued, and because it had no reasonable prospect of success. Mr Privett's remaining claim was dismissed because the first respondent had been dissolved; his claim against the Secretary of State had earlier been dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37(1)(a)
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.