Case 1405952/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms V Kiba Miss N Chigarire Mr G Mgaloblishvili v House of Yen Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405952/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms V Kiba Miss N Chigarire Mr G Mgaloblishvili
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy email dated 25 June 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why their claims should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the claimants had failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims. The hearing listed for 28 June 2024 did not take place.
The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying merits, and it does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not specify the individual legal labels in the extracted text, but the case listing identifies breach of contract as one of the claim categories. The claims were struck out after the claimants did not respond to Tribunal correspondence or make representations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not specify the individual legal labels in the extracted text, but the case listing identifies working time as one of the claim categories. The claims were struck out after the claimants did not respond to Tribunal correspondence or request a hearing. | 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.