Case 1600432/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Buckley v Mike Jones & Son Decorators Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600432/2021
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Buckley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sharp struck out Mr D Buckley’s claim against Mike Jones & Son Decorators Ltd in a judgment dated 4 July 2022, sent to the parties on 20 July 2022. The reasons state that the respondent company had been dissolved and that the claimant had not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies.
The tribunal had previously given the claimant an opportunity on 17 June 2022 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, so the claim was struck out. No remedy was awarded. The judgment does not determine the merits of the pleaded heads identified in the case listing as breach of contract, redundancy pay, and unlawful deduction from wages.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole; this head is taken from the case listing and is not itemised in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole; this head is taken from the case listing and is not itemised in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole; this head is taken from the case listing and is not itemised in the reasons. | 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.