Case 3300533/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T King v Eleciserve E & M Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300533/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T King
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed as a remedy hearing after a rule 22 judgment for the claimant. The claimant did not attend, and when contacted by the tribunal he said he was at work and would not be attending, although the tribunal recorded that he was aware of the hearing.
The respondent's liquidator attended and confirmed that the claimant's financial claims capable of being settled by the Secretary of State had been settled, and that no dividend would arise from the liquidation to satisfy any further judgments. The tribunal found the claimant was not actively pursuing his claim for a remedy, noting his non-attendance and the absence of a schedule of loss, and dismissed the remedy claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismissed the claim for a remedy following an earlier rule 22 judgment because it was not being actively pursued. It also recorded that financial claims capable of being settled by the Secretary of State had been settled, but did not provide a breakdown or amount. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismissed the claim for a remedy following an earlier rule 22 judgment because it was not being actively pursued. It also recorded that financial claims capable of being settled by the Secretary of State had been settled, but did not provide a breakdown or amount. | 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.