Case 2501448/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. David Wood, Mr G Grogan, Mr. C Watson, Miss S Ash, Miss E Johnston v Sand Dune Leisure Ltd, — 2026
- Case reference
- 2501448/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. David Wood, Mr G Grogan, Mr. C Watson, Miss S Ash, Miss E Johnston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims brought by Mr David Wood and four other claimants against Sand Dune Leisure LTD. It found that it lacked jurisdiction because the claimants did not have two years' continuous service.
On 12 May 2026, the tribunal wrote to the claimants warning that their claims appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. The letter offered them an opportunity to explain why their claims should not be struck out or to request a hearing. They did not reply. Employment Judge T.R Smith found that the grounds for strike-out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claims accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment was approved on 11 June 2026 and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not expressly identify the claim type. This entry records the common strike-out outcome for all five claimants; the unfair dismissal listing category is not expressly confirmed in the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (overriding objective)
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.