Case 2410270/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Nisbet Mr S Ikin Mr T Nutter Mr P Lunt v Fincube Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410270/2022
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Nisbet Mr S Ikin Mr T Nutter Mr P Lunt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 11 November 2024, none of the claimants attended. The tribunal recorded that Mr Nisbet had presented a December 2022 claim for unauthorised deductions from wages said to exceed £130,000 and had also named Mr Ikin, Mr Nutter and Mr Lunt on the claim form. A case management hearing on 17 August 2023 had required confirmation that the additional claimants had authorised the claims and had set further case management obligations, but no effective steps were taken afterwards to prepare the case for trial.
The claims for Mr Ikin, Mr Nutter and Mr Lunt were struck out. The tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Nisbet had authority to pursue those claims on their behalf and could not be confident that the additional claimants even knew about them. It therefore found that the claims appeared to be an abuse of process and, alternatively, that Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) were engaged because the required information had not been provided and the claims had not been actively pursued.
Mr Nisbet’s own claim was also struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). The judge declined to find that the claim was scandalous, vexatious or had no reasonable prospects of success, but held that Mr Nisbet had failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the case, making strike out proportionate. The respondent’s costs application under Rule 76(1)(a) failed; although the judge considered that Mr Nisbet had acted unreasonably in the way he conducted the claim, no costs order was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Nisbet’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) because he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue the case. The tribunal did not rely on Rule 37(1)(a) or (b). | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim brought in Mr Ikin’s name was struck out. The tribunal was not satisfied Mr Nisbet had authority to bring the claim on his behalf and treated the claim as an abuse of process; alternatively, Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) were engaged. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim brought in Mr Nutter’s name was struck out. The tribunal was not satisfied Mr Nisbet had authority to bring the claim on his behalf and treated the claim as an abuse of process; alternatively, Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) were engaged. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim brought in Mr Lunt’s name was struck out. The tribunal was not satisfied Mr Nisbet had authority to bring the claim on his behalf and treated the claim as an abuse of process; alternatively, Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) were engaged. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
- Rule 47
- Rule 76(1)(a)
- Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 2024 EAT 134
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.