Case 2405992/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Michael Westwood v Bulldogz Gym Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405992/2019
- Decision date
- 5 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michael Westwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Michael Westwood, brought claims including breach of contract, holiday pay and a redundancy payment against Bulldogz Gym Limited. At the hearing on 23 August 2019, the Tribunal found that the respondent had been dissolved and removed from the Companies House register.
The claimant was given until 4 October 2019 to say whether he was taking steps to have the company restored to the register. No response was received. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims because the respondent had been removed from the companies register. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Named in the reasons as one of the claims raised by the claimant; the judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out after the respondent had been dissolved and removed from the companies house register. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Named in the reasons as one of the claims raised by the claimant; the judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out after the respondent had been dissolved and removed from the companies house register. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Named in the reasons as one of the claims raised by the claimant; the judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out after the respondent had been dissolved and removed from the companies house register. | 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.