Case 2305189/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Sale v Science Card Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305189/2025
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Daniel Sale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with claim 2305189/2025 on the papers under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. It recorded that Mr Sale had submitted a claim against Science Card Limited on 19 July 2025 for unpaid wages, which was assigned case number 2306703/2025, and that the same claim form also named Ms Leigh Golding as a second claimant, giving rise to case number 2306704/2025.
The tribunal further noted that Ms Golding had already submitted a separate claim form on 9 June 2025, which became case number 2305188/2025, and that this earlier form also included Mr Sale, giving rise to the present case number 2305189/2025. On that basis, the tribunal identified four claims in total and treated the present claim as duplicative of 2306704/2025.
By letter dated 31 July 2025, the tribunal asked Mr Sale to confirm whether he was pursuing both claims and, if so, why. No reply was received. The tribunal concluded that the second claim appeared to be an unintended duplicate and struck it out as an abuse of process. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as an abuse of process because the tribunal found this case was a duplicate of claim 2306704/2025. The reasons also describe it as dismissed as an abuse of process. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.