Case 2403568/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Belfield v Crossfield Group Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403568/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Belfield
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 28 November 2022, the tribunal gave Mr S Belfield an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why his claims should not be struck out for having not been actively pursued. The judgment records that he failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge KM Ross therefore struck out the claims. The judgment does not contain substantive findings on the underlying merits of the breach of contract, redundancy, unlawful deduction from wages, or working time claims, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 28 November 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 28 November 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 28 November 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 28 November 2022. | 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.