Case 3204586/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Polston v Willican Limited (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204586/2022
- Decision date
- 20 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr W Polston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a director and sole shareholder of the First Respondent, brought claims for arrears of pay, notice pay, redundancy pay and accrued but untaken holiday pay. The First Respondent was in creditors voluntary liquidation, and the Second Respondent was potentially liable for certain statutory liabilities if the claimant was an employee and the proceedings were brought in time.
The Second Respondent disputed that the claimant was an employee and also argued that the claim was out of time. Before the hearing, the claimant's representative had told the Second Respondent that the claim had been withdrawn, but no direct confirmation of withdrawal had been sent to the Tribunal before the final hearing.
No party attended the hearing on 20 January 2023. The Tribunal treated the claimant as having withdrawn the claim, based on the correspondence between the claimant's representative and the Second Respondent, and dismissed the claim upon withdrawal under Rule 52. It stated that, if that conclusion was wrong, the proceedings would in any event be dismissed under Rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant pursued arrears of pay. The Tribunal treated the claim as withdrawn and dismissed it upon withdrawal under Rule 52; alternatively it would have dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant pursued notice pay. The Tribunal treated the claim as withdrawn and dismissed it upon withdrawal under Rule 52; alternatively it would have dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant pursued redundancy pay. The Tribunal treated the claim as withdrawn and dismissed it upon withdrawal under Rule 52; alternatively it would have dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant pursued accrued but untaken holiday pay. The Tribunal treated the claim as withdrawn and dismissed it upon withdrawal under Rule 52; alternatively it would have dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.