Case 2300067/2022 · Employment Tribunal
H Pendered-Mazer Aditya Desai Stuart Hewitson Ashley Smalley v Hextransforma Healthcare Limited (in Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300067/2022
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
H Pendered-Mazer Aditya Desai Stuart Hewitson Ashley Smalley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the respondent's name in each claim to Hextransforma Healthcare Limited (in Administration).
The Tribunal had written to the claimants on 11 June 2024 warning that it was considering striking out the claims because they appeared not to have been actively pursued. The claimants did not reply by the 18 June 2024 deadline, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself refers generally to the claims and does not give particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself refers generally to the claims and does not give particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself refers generally to the claims and does not give particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment itself refers generally to the claims and does not give particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.