Case 3306467/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Turner v ARJ Construction Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306467/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Turner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with whether the claimant’s complaints of unpaid wages and a redundancy payment should be struck out for not having been actively pursued. By letters dated 30 December 2024 and 11 February 2025, the tribunal gave Mr C Turner an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, explaining why those complaints should not be struck out.
Mr Turner did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient written representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out both the unpaid wages complaint and the redundancy payment complaint. The judgment states that this decision does not affect any entitlement the claimant may have under the protective award made by the tribunal on 2 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 14 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unpaid wages struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the tribunal said the claimant failed to make written representations or sufficient representations, or to request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Complaint for a redundancy payment struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the tribunal said the claimant failed to make written representations or sufficient representations, or to request a hearing. | 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.