Case 2602472/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Cassoneca v Aspire Achieve Advance Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602472/2018
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Z Cassoneca
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had previously ordered the claimant to write to the Tribunal, copying both respondents, to state whether he had made a claim to the Redundancy Payments Service, whether any outstanding sums had been paid, and whether the monetary complaints were withdrawn as a result.
The claimant failed to comply with that order. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Gov.uk listing category identifies breach of contract; the judgment itself strikes out the claims collectively after non-compliance with an order. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment refers to an order requiring the claimant to state whether he had made a claim to the Redundancy Payments Service and whether outstanding sums had been paid; the claim was struck out collectively. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gov.uk listing category identifies unlawful deduction from wages; the judgment itself refers only to monetary complaints and strikes out the claims collectively. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Gov.uk listing category identifies Working Time Regulations; the judgment itself refers only to monetary complaints and strikes out the claims collectively. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Gov.uk listing category identifies a protective award; the locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, and the judgment strikes out the claims collectively. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.