Case 1806786/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Hardy v Emzee Catering Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806786/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Hardy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr B Hardy's claim against Emzee Catering Ltd on 17 July 2023. The reasons record that, by a letter dated 5 July 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out. The judgment does not contain findings on the merits of the underlying employment claims.
The extracted judgment does not allocate any separate remedy or award. It is a short procedural decision only, and the tribunal's sole recorded outcome is strike out for non-pursuit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separate individual heads of claim; it states that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separate individual heads of claim; it states that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not separate individual heads of claim; it states that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.