Case 1808579/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lewis v MGG Developments Co Ltd (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808579/2023
- Decision date
- 10 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Davies struck out Mr D Lewis's claims against MGG Developments Co Ltd (in liquidation). The judgment records that, by a letter dated 19 April 2024, the Tribunal warned the claimant that his claims might be struck out because he had not complied with any of the Tribunal's orders and had not actively pursued the claims. The claimant was given an opportunity to write to the Tribunal explaining why the claims should not be struck out or to request a hearing.
The claimant did not respond. The judge found that it appeared the claimant had not actively pursued his claims and had not complied with Tribunal orders, and decided that it was appropriate to strike out the claims. The judgment does not record any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not itemise the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim type taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not itemise the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not itemise the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself does not itemise the claims. | 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.