Case 3304559/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Longstaff v BioHiTech Europe Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304559/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Longstaff
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the respondent on 23 June 2025 giving it an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why its response should not be struck out. The stated reasons were non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 8 January 2025 and that the response had not been actively pursued.
The respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the response. The judgment records that the respondent remains entitled to notice of hearings and decisions, but may participate in any hearing only to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. It does not determine the breach of contract claim on its merits or award a remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. It does not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits or award a remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. It does not determine the unlawful deduction from wages claim on its merits or award a remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. It does not determine the Working Time Regulations claim on its merits or award a remedy. | Other | — | — |
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.