Case 2414440/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Papadakis v Minoan Supplies Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414440/2021
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Papadakis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 23 September 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claims. The hearing listed for 14 December 2022 did not take place. The extracted judgment records no substantive findings on the underlying merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing for this case; the extracted judgment text does not enumerate the individual claims, but states that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing for this case; the extracted judgment text does not enumerate the individual claims, but states that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing for this case; the extracted judgment text does not enumerate the individual claims, but states that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.