Case 3302699/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr D Campbell (2) Mr B Bardsley (3) Mr A Boyce (4) Mr B Carstairs (5) Mr I Clydesdale (6) Mr J Hamilton (7) Mr P Kane (8) Mr N Lockett-Chapman (9) Mr W Nicklin (10) Mr D Ross (11) Mr S Thomson v NG Bailey Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302699/2022
- Decision date
- 13 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr D Campbell (2) Mr B Bardsley (3) Mr A Boyce (4) Mr B Carstairs (5) Mr I Clydesdale (6) Mr J Hamilton (7) Mr P Kane (8) Mr N Lockett-Chapman (9) Mr W Nicklin (10) Mr D Ross (11) Mr S Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 November 2022, each claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £90 in relation to the public interest disclosure detriment complaints. The order was sent to the parties on 18 November 2022, and the judgment records that all of the claimants failed to pay their deposits.
As a result, the complaints of public interest disclosure detriment were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment also records that the claims for unauthorised deductions from wages would proceed to determination in accordance with the case management orders, and no remedy was decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimants' public interest disclosure detriment complaints were struck out after all failed to pay the £90 deposit ordered following a preliminary hearing on 9 November 2022; the order was sent on 18 November 2022. The strike out was under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.