Case 1801379/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Robson Mr D Wasden Mr D Gee Mrs J Littlewood Mrs L Waller Mr M O’Driscoll Mr N Sampson Mr K Parkes Mr B Cuffy Mr C Rayner Mr C Denman Mr J Coxall Mr A Hurd Mr S Vine v RJD Fabrications Ltd (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801379/2020
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Robson Mr D Wasden Mr D Gee Mrs J Littlewood Mrs L Waller Mr M O’Driscoll Mr N Sampson Mr K Parkes Mr B Cuffy Mr C Rayner Mr C Denman Mr J Coxall Mr A Hurd Mr S Vine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 30 July 2020, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claims should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Shepherd therefore struck out the claims under rule 37 on 28 October 2020. The judgment records no merits findings and no remedy, because the claims were disposed of at the strike-out stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment text does not identify the substantive claim label; this claim type is inferred from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the case listing context for a protective award claim; the judgment text itself only refers generally to 'these claims'. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The extracted judgment text does not identify this claim expressly, but the case listing context indicates a redundancy-related claim. | 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.