Case 2400520/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Green v ARI-RM STYLE Ltd (dissolved) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400520/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that ARI-RM STYLE LTD had been dissolved and that Miss M Green had not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies. On 12 January 2025 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no merits findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records only that the claim is struck out. The underlying unfair dismissal classification is taken from the case context/listing, and the judgment does not separate out merits findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records only that the claim is struck out. The underlying wages classification is taken from the case context/listing, and the judgment does not separate out merits findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records only that the claim is struck out. The underlying working time classification is taken from the case context/listing, and the judgment does not separate out merits findings. | 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.