Case 2500734/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Inkster (1) Mr S Burridge (2) Mr A Laidler (3) Mr N Rutherford (4) Mr C Kinghorn (5) Mr R Kinghorn (6) v Surgo Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500734/2024
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Inkster (1) Mr S Burridge (2) Mr A Laidler (3) Mr N Rutherford (4) Mr C Kinghorn (5) Mr R Kinghorn (6)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 2 June 2025 at Newcastle CFCTC, Employment Judge Arullendran recorded the judgment for six claimants against Surgo Construction Limited in administration. The written record states that the first, second and fourth claimants' claims were dismissed under Rule 47. It does not identify the underlying claim type for those claimants in the extracted text, and no monetary award is recorded for any of those claims.
The third claimant, Mr Laidler, brought an unfair dismissal claim, which the tribunal recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The third, fifth and sixth claimants also brought claims for a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Those claims were found not well founded and dismissed.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. The extracted record contains only the outcome orders, so no further findings of fact or remedy figures are recorded in the written judgment text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The first claimant's claims were dismissed under Rule 47. The extracted text does not identify the underlying claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The second claimant's claims were dismissed under Rule 47. The extracted text does not identify the underlying claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The fourth claimant's claims were dismissed under Rule 47. The extracted text does not identify the underlying claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim brought by the third claimant was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Trade union | Claims by the third, fifth and sixth claimants for a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.