Case 2405876/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Taylor v Infrastructure Delivery Services Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405876/2022
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 1 February 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Phil Allen ordered that the claim be struck out. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. By a letter dated 1 February 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing; she did not do so, or did not make sufficient representations, why strike-out should not follow. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. By a letter dated 1 February 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing; she did not do so, or did not make sufficient representations, why strike-out should not follow. | 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.