Case 2403150/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Vibrations Pub Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403150/2023
- Decision date
- 2 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims. It recorded that the respondent company had been dissolved and that the claimants had not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies.
The tribunal had already given the claimants opportunities on 14 February 2024 and 6 March 2024 to provide written reasons or request a hearing explaining why the claims should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The claimants did not give an acceptable reason.
On that basis, Employment Judge Dunlop ordered that the claims be struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out this claim head in the reasons, but the case listing includes breach of contract. The tribunal struck out the claims because the respondent had been dissolved and the claimants did not give an acceptable reason for not actively pursuing them. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the individual claim heads in the reasons, but the case listing includes unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out the claims because the respondent had been dissolved and the claimants did not give an acceptable reason for not actively pursuing them. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the individual claim heads in the reasons, but the case listing includes working time. The tribunal struck out the claims because the respondent had been dissolved and the claimants did not give an acceptable reason for not actively pursuing them. | 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.