Case 2409294/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Holden Miss C Biggs Miss H Wilson Ms K Grobler Miss A Goodbridge v Mr Michael Sandison — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409294/2020
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Holden Miss C Biggs Miss H Wilson Ms K Grobler Miss A Goodbridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis decision concerns case numbers 2409294/2020 to 2409298/2020, brought by Miss Y Holden, Miss C Biggs, Miss H Wilson, Ms K Grobler and Miss A Goodbridge against Mr Michael Sandison. The judgment is dated 19 November 2021 and was sent to the parties on 26 November 2021.
By letter dated 1 November 2021, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. No written representations were made and no hearing was requested, so the tribunal struck out the claims.
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. After the letter dated 1 November 2021, the claimants did not make written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. After the letter dated 1 November 2021, the claimants did not make written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. After the letter dated 1 November 2021, the claimants did not make written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. After the letter dated 1 November 2021, the claimants did not make written representations or request a hearing. | 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.