Case 1800307/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cliffe v Harvard Technology Ltd (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800307/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cliffe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had indicated in the claim form that he was claiming unfair dismissal and breach of contract, identified as notice pay, as well as a protective award. A strike out warning was issued in respect of the outstanding unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.
The Tribunal struck out the breach of contract and unfair dismissal complaints. The reason given was that there was still no indication that the administrators had consented to those two additional claims being pursued before the Tribunal. The judgment states that the protective award judgment was not affected.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this as Breach of Contract (Notice Pay) and strikes it out because there was still no indication that the administrators had consented to the additional claim being pursued before the Tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because there was still no indication that the administrators had consented to the additional claim being pursued before the Tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.