Case 2416286/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr John Foster Mr Nathan Hincks Mr Oliver Letchford Mr Liam Robinson Mr Craig Wild v Saica Flex UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2416286/2018
- Decision date
- 18 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr John Foster Mr Nathan Hincks Mr Oliver Letchford Mr Liam Robinson Mr Craig Wild
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the five linked cases brought by Mr John Foster, Mr Nathan Hincks, Mr Oliver Letchford, Mr Liam Robinson and Mr Craig Wild against Saica Flex UK Limited, Employment Judge Sherratt recorded that the claims were struck out. The judgment does not set out any merits findings or substantive liability determination.
The reasons state that, by letter dated 7 August 2019, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations on whether they wished to pursue their claims or withdraw them. No responses were received. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claims because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment was sent to the parties on 18 November 2019.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment is a short strike-out order and does not specify the underlying substantive claim type in the text provided. It records dismissal for non-pursuit after no representations were received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment is a short strike-out order and does not specify the underlying substantive claim type in the text provided. It records dismissal for non-pursuit after no representations were received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment is a short strike-out order and does not specify the underlying substantive claim type in the text provided. It records dismissal for non-pursuit after no representations were received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment is a short strike-out order and does not specify the underlying substantive claim type in the text provided. It records dismissal for non-pursuit after no representations were received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment is a short strike-out order and does not specify the underlying substantive claim type in the text provided. It records dismissal for non-pursuit after no representations were received. | 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.