Case 2300381/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mach Recruitment Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300381/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented the claim on 28 January 2021 using a postal address in Chiswick and an email address which appeared to belong to Ms Trigg. After service on the respondent, emails were received from that address first asking for the claim to be cancelled and later stating that the claim should continue.
The respondent requested service at its correct address, a response was lodged, and the Tribunal sent it to the claimant using the email address on record. Ms Trigg then told the Tribunal she was the claimant's ex-partner, that he was in Romania, and that she did not want further emails about the claim.
Employment Judge Abbott asked Ms Trigg for forwarding contact details because the Tribunal required the claimant himself to confirm any withdrawal. No reply was received, and the Tribunal found that it was unable to contact the claimant and that the claim was not being actively pursued. The claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out the individual pleaded heads of claim, but the gov.uk listing category identifies breach of contract; the claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the individual pleaded heads of claim, but the gov.uk listing category identifies unlawful deduction from wages; the claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The gov.uk listing category includes written pay statement, which is not separately represented in the locked taxonomy; the judgment itself refers only to the claim being struck out. | 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.