Case 1802104/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A A Saif, Mr T A Hogg & Mr P A Smithies v Smart Guard Security Ltd (Dissolved) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802104/2023
- Decision date
- 14 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A A Saif, Mr T A Hogg & Mr P A Smithies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 14 November 2023, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out. The stated reason was that, following the tribunal’s letter dated 27 April 2023, the claimants had not applied to reinstate the dissolved respondent company to the register, and the claims were therefore not being actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient written representations, and did not request a hearing. The Employment Judge therefore struck out the claims on 13 December 2023. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying claims and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the published GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing; the written judgment itself only states that the claims were struck out after the claimants failed to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the published GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing; the written judgment itself only states that the claims were struck out after the claimants failed to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the published GOV.UK jurisdiction code listing; the written judgment itself only states that the claims were struck out after the claimants failed 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.