Case 3201407/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ruddock v TechTalent Academy Limited (in liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201407/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eleena Misra
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ruddock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that it had sent the claimant a letter on 28/11/2023 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because he had not complied with the tribunal's directions dated 11/20/2023 and the claim was not being actively pursued. The claimant did not respond to that warning or comply with the outstanding directions.
The claimant also did not attend the CVP hearing listed for 4 December 2023 and gave no explanation for his absence. The tribunal waited until 10.30 a.m. in case he was unavoidably late.
The tribunal noted that the respondent had been wound up by an order of the High Court sealed on 7 November 2023, according to publicly available information. In those circumstances, and in light of the claimant's non-compliance and non-attendance, the tribunal said it would be contrary to the overriding objective to relist the matter. The judgment therefore states simply that the claim is dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed without any merits findings after the claimant failed to comply with outstanding tribunal directions, did not respond to a strike-out warning letter dated 28/11/2023, and did not attend the CVP hearing on 4 December 2023. | 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.