Case 2405645/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mr L Spanik 2. Mr E Guichard v Forb Cross Limited (dissolved) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2405645/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mr L Spanik 2. Mr E Guichard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 18 February 2025, Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone struck out the claims brought by Mr L Spanik and Mr E Guichard against Forb Cross Limited (dissolved). The tribunal recorded that Forb Cross Limited had been dissolved on 20 May 2024 and that, in order to sue it, the company would first have to be restored to the register of companies. Because that had not happened, the claims were struck out.
In the alternative, the tribunal said the claims would also have been struck out for non-compliance and non-pursuit. The claimants had not complied with case management orders dated 14 September 2024, had failed to attend a final hearing for a second time on 30 January 2025, and did not attend the hearing on 18 February 2025. The tribunal noted that the claims had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the reasons do not enumerate each substantive claim separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the reasons do not enumerate each substantive claim separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the reasons do not enumerate each substantive claim separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the reasons do not enumerate each substantive claim separately. | 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.