Case 1806716/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Plant v Azad Cafe Bistro Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806716/2019
- Decision date
- 26 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Plant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 10 August 2020 to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason identified was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the respondent had been dissolved and the claimant had no intention of applying for it to be restored to the Register.
The claimant did not respond to that letter. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim on 26 August 2020. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the respondent had been dissolved, and the claimant said he had no intention of applying for restoration to the Register. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the respondent had been dissolved, and the claimant said he had no intention of applying for restoration to the Register. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the respondent had been dissolved, and the claimant said he had no intention of applying for restoration to the Register. | 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.