Case 1600390/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Friswell v Aquarius Direct Maintenance (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600390/2019
- Decision date
- 13 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Friswell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the proceedings against Aquarius Direct Maintenance (in compulsory liquidation) were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment is a short withdrawal/strike-out decision and does not set out any substantive findings on liability for the underlying employment claims.
No remedy was awarded. The text provided does not contain a split between claims, a quantified award, or any further reasoning beyond the strike-out under rule 52. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Harfield on 18 September 2020 and sent to the parties on 13 October 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the proceedings against Aquarius Direct Maintenance (in compulsory liquidation) are struck out on the grounds that they have not been actively pursued. It does not separately analyse this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the proceedings against Aquarius Direct Maintenance (in compulsory liquidation) are struck out on the grounds that they have not been actively pursued. It does not separately analyse this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.