Case 1600962/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Nicholls, Mrs L Hook, Miss L Saxton, Mrs H Evans, Miss M Hunt, Miss K Martin, Miss D Devonald, Miss K Thomas-Crout, Miss A Naylor v AIC Steel Limited (In Administration) — 2017
- Case reference
- 1600962/2016
- Decision date
- 7 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Nicholls, Mrs L Hook, Miss L Saxton, Mrs H Evans, Miss M Hunt, Miss K Martin, Miss D Devonald, Miss K Thomas-Crout, Miss A Naylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. The judgment lists the claimant group, naming Mr C Nicholls, Mrs L Hook, Miss L Saxton, Mrs H Evans, Miss M Hunt, Miss K Martin, Miss D Devonald, Miss K Thomas-Crout and Miss A Naylor, and the respondent as AIC Steel Limited (In Administration).
The tribunal recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. No substantive issues were determined, no findings of fact or liability are recorded, and no remedy was awarded.
Because the judgment contains only the withdrawal disposal and no merits decision, there are no legal findings beyond the procedural dismissal of the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. No substantive tribunal findings are set out. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.