Case 2305546/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss E MacFarlane 2. Mr F Lambert v Andrew Taylor — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305546/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Miss E MacFarlane 2. Mr F Lambert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 30 January 2025, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claims should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the unfair dismissal claims had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimants did not appear to have 2 years' service, and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Heath therefore ordered that all of the claims by both claimants be struck out on 25 March 2025. The judgment does not record any substantive determination on the merits and records no remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons specifically refer to the unfair dismissal claims, stating that the claimants did not appear to have 2 years' service and that the claims had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Not separately discussed in the reasons; the judgment states that all of the claims by both claimants were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Not separately discussed in the reasons; the judgment states that all of the claims by both claimants were 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.