Case 2210385/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MR ADAM GILHESPY v HAMPSTEAD HEAT LIMITED (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210385/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR ADAM GILHESPY
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Adam Gilhespy brought claims against Hampstead Heat Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The case was heard at London Central by CVP on 20 October 2023 before Employment Judge N. Clarke, with the claimant appearing on his own behalf and no appearance for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the claims were brought out of time. It refused the application to extend time and therefore dismissed the claims without reaching the merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claims were brought out of time and the application to extend time was refused. Claim type taken from the case listing context; the judgment text itself does not identify individual causes of action. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claims were brought out of time and the application to extend time was refused. Claim type taken from the case listing context; the judgment text itself does not identify individual causes of action. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the claims were brought out of time and the application to extend time was refused. Claim type taken from the case listing context; the judgment text itself does not identify individual causes of action. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.