Case 2305188/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Leigh Golding v Science Card Limited — 2025

Case reference: 2305188/2025
Decision date: 9 June 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Fowell Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Leigh Golding

Respondent

Science Card Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant submitted claim 2305188/2025 against Science Card Limited for notice pay, unpaid wages and whistleblowing. A later claim, 2306704/2025, was treated as a duplicate of claim 2305188/2025 and was struck out as an abuse of process.

The tribunal had asked the claimant to confirm whether she was pursuing both claims and whether she was pursuing a whistleblowing claim, no particulars having been provided. No reply was received, and the whistleblowing complaint in 2305188/2025 was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The judgment states that the claimant brought a claim for notice pay, but it does not determine that complaint.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment states that the claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages, but it does not determine that complaint.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The whistleblowing complaint in case 2305188/2025 was struck out because no details had been provided and it had no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.