Case 2603485/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gul v 1) Pendergate Limited T/A Ridge Crest Cleaning Services 2) Regent Office Care Limited T/A Regent Samsic — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603485/2019
- Decision date
- 1 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gul
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike out judgment under rule 37. By letter dated 11 March 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim.
The judgment records that the hearing listed for 3 and 4 June 2020 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type in the extracted text, but the case listing for this matter included unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not specify this claim type in the extracted text; it is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not specify this claim type in the extracted text; it is taken from the case listing context. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.