Case 2414066/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Barbara Beard Miss Laura Robinson Mr John Maguire Mr Gary Leyland Mr David Gennis Mr Ryan Bailey Mr Mark Fawcett v Redituff Renewable Energy Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414066/2019
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Barbara Beard Miss Laura Robinson Mr John Maguire Mr Gary Leyland Mr David Gennis Mr Ryan Bailey Mr Mark Fawcett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with seven linked case numbers brought by Mrs Barbara Beard, Miss Laura Robinson, Mr John Maguire, Mr Gary Leyland, Mr David Gennis, Mr Ryan Bailey and Mr Mark Fawcett against Redituff Renewable Energy Limited. By letters dated 6 April 2020, 9 October 2020 and 12 December 2020, the Tribunal gave each claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The judgment states that none of the claimants responded to explain why their claims should continue. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claims. The written record does not contain findings on the merits of the underlying complaints and does not record any monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not give separate substantive findings on this claim type. It records that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued after three letters inviting representations or a hearing request. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not give separate substantive findings on this claim type. It records that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued after three letters inviting representations or a hearing request. | 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.