Case 2405051/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ball Mr D Hailwood Mr S Canavan Mr N Coyne v SLG DB Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405051/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ball Mr D Hailwood Mr S Canavan Mr N Coyne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered case numbers 2405051/2022 to 2405054/2022 against SLG DB Limited (in compulsory liquidation). By a letter dated 26 July 2024, it gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why their claims should not be struck out because the Tribunal had not received a response to its earlier letter of 27 September 2023 asking for confirmation that the claimants had permission from the liquidator to continue their claims. No response was received from any of the claimants.
The Tribunal found that the claimants had failed to make written representations, or any sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not follow, and had not requested a hearing. It therefore struck out the claims. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Underlying claim type inferred from the case context supplied with the judgment; the judgment text itself only records that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Underlying claim type inferred from the case context supplied with the judgment; the judgment text itself only records that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Underlying claim type inferred from the case context supplied with the judgment; the judgment text itself only records that the claims 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.