Case 1405996/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Hickery v Discount Stores Shirehampton Ltd (now dissolved) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405996/2020
- Decision date
- 11 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Christensen Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs C Hickery
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol on 18 October 2021, Employment Judge Christensen carried out a Companies House search that morning and found that Discount Stores Shirehampton Ltd had been dissolved on 18 May 2021. After discussion with the claimant, it was explained that the claim could not continue in the Employment Tribunal because there was no legal entity in existence against which it could be pursued unless the company was restored to the register.
The claimant confirmed that she understood that R1 was the correct respondent and was content for Mr Vishal Patel (R2) to be dismissed from proceedings. She also confirmed that she did not believe R2 had continued trading the business previously operated by R1, and she did not wish to apply to restore R1 to the Companies House register.
The judge said that the material already read appeared to show that the claimant had been made redundant on 26 June 2020, that her employment was continuous from March 2005, and that her redundancy entitlement would have been £6,951.38. No judgment or order reflecting that figure could be issued for the reasons given, and the claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment did not separately determine this head. It was struck out with the rest of the claim because the first respondent had been dissolved and there was no legal entity against which the claim could be pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judge said the papers appeared to show that the claimant had been made redundant on 26 June 2020, that her employment was continuous from March 2005, and that her redundancy entitlement would have been £6,951.38, but no judgment or order could be issued because R1 had been dissolved. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment did not separately determine this head. It was struck out with the rest of the claim because the first respondent had been dissolved and there was no legal entity against which the claim could be pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Used for the Working Time Regulations and Written Statements listing category. The judgment does not separately identify any working-time or written-statement finding; that part of the claim was struck out with the rest of the case because R1 had been dissolved. | 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.