Case 1601609/2018 · Employment Tribunal
R. Adams (Cl) Mr. D. Roberts (C2) Ms. A. Williams (C3) Ms. L. Williams (C4) Mr. G. Hughes (C5) Mr. S. Lynch (C6) Ms. N. Davies (C7) Ms. J. Laudan (C8) v Venu Bar Company Ltd (RI) Venu Bar and Grill Ltd and 5 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601609/2018
- Decision date
- 25 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
7 namedClaimant
R. Adams (Cl) Mr. D. Roberts (C2) Ms. A. Williams (C3) Ms. L. Williams (C4) Mr. G. Hughes (C5) Mr. S. Lynch (C6) Ms. N. Davies (C7) Ms. J. Laudan (C8)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letters dated 29 March 2020 and 21 February 2021, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimants failed to make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy are recorded in the judgment, and the text does not identify the underlying causes of action beyond the fact that multiple claimants and respondents were involved.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive causes of action. It states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after opportunities to make representations 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.