Case 1806857/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Taylor v The Deltic Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806857/2020
- Decision date
- 18 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 3 August 2021, the tribunal gave Mr N Taylor an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The judgment records that he failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Lancaster struck out the claim on 18 August 2021. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying employment claims, nor does it award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 3 August 2021 to make representations or request a hearing, but he did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 3 August 2021 to make representations or request a hearing, but he did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 3 August 2021 to make representations or request a hearing, but he did not make sufficient 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.