Case 2600680/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Esiekpe Ms Holly Ash Mr P Bains Ms S Goodwin Ms Rebecca Hawkins v Crown Care Holdings Limited, Maymask — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600680/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Esiekpe Ms Holly Ash Mr P Bains Ms S Goodwin Ms Rebecca Hawkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order dated 22 October 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, explaining why the claims should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The extract records that the claimants failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims. The judgment contains no merits findings on the underlying claims and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. The protective award category comes from the case context; the extract does not identify the underlying statutory basis. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states only that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. The extract does not give a separate merits finding on the redundancy claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment states only that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. The extract does not give a separate merits finding on the TUPE claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claims were struck out for not being actively pursued. The extract does not give a separate merits finding on the unlawful deduction claim. | 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.