Case 2301477/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fraser Miller v Digiconvenience Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301477/2019
- Decision date
- 12 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Fraser Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fraser Miller brought claims against Digiconvenience Limited for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract following termination of his employment on 12 March 2019. The sums claimed were arrears of wages of £2,011.30, holiday pay of £241.36 and notice pay of £1,450, totalling £3,702.66. The respondent did not enter a response and took no part in the proceedings.
At the hearing on 12 December 2019, Employment Judge Fowell noted from the Companies House register that Digiconvenience Limited had been dissolved on 10 December 2019. On that basis the tribunal dismissed the claim, stating that there was no legal entity against which judgment could be entered. The reasons added that Mr Miller would need to apply to Companies House to restore the company to the register if he wished to obtain judgment in the tribunal, and that he should also contact the Insolvency Service about reimbursement of his arrears of wages, holiday pay and notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim dismissed because the respondent company had been dissolved on 10 December 2019, so there was no legal entity against which judgment could be entered. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim dismissed for the same reason: the respondent was dissolved and the tribunal said judgment could not be entered against it unless the company was restored to the register. | 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.