Case 1806642/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr NJ French v Aquilla Facilities Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806642/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr NJ French
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the procedural history of the claim and the status of the named respondents. It recorded that the claim against the Second Respondent had never been formally served and that earlier orders had treated entities as parties when they had not properly been parties to the proceedings.
The Tribunal stated that it had concluded the Second Respondent should be removed under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 as wrongly included. The claimant then indicated that he would not pursue the claim, or present a new claim, against Aquila Industrial Cleaning Specialists Ltd, so that part of the case was disposed of by dismissal on withdrawal.
The claim against Aquilla Facilities Limited remained stayed because that company had entered administration, pending any application to the administrators or the court for consent to proceed. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment did not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal; the claim against the First Respondent remained stayed pending consent to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment did not determine the breach of contract claim on its merits. The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal; the claim against the First Respondent remained stayed pending consent to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment did not determine the unlawful deduction from wages claim on its merits. The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal; the claim against the First Respondent remained stayed pending consent to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment did not determine the working time claim on its merits. The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal; the claim against the First Respondent remained stayed pending consent to proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.