Case 3305273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N McDonald 3305273/2023 Mrs M McDonald 3305274/2023 Mr L McDonald 3305276/2023 Mr S Flowers 3305277/2023 v Dove Workshops and Co. Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305273/2023
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
- Venue
- Watford ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N McDonald 3305273/2023 Mrs M McDonald 3305274/2023 Mr L McDonald 3305276/2023 Mr S Flowers 3305277/2023
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal on 4 August 2025 before Employment Judge Malik sitting alone. The respondent did not appear and was not represented. The claimants were represented by Mr P Stott. The judgment identifies four linked proceedings brought by Mr N McDonald, Mrs M McDonald, Mr L McDonald and Mr S Flowers against Dove Workshops and Co. Limited.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all claims in these proceedings were struck out because they were presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. It does not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that all claims in these proceedings were struck out because they were presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. It does not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that all claims in these proceedings were struck out because they were presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. It does not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that all claims in these proceedings were struck out because they were presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. It does not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.