Case 3307063/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Brown Mr P Clark Mr S Weller Mr RR Skegg v Spa Design and Manufacturing Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307063/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Brown Mr P Clark Mr S Weller Mr RR Skegg
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records claims by Mr A Brown, Mr P Clark, Mr S Weller and Mr R R Skegg against Spa Design and Manufacturing Ltd (in compulsory liquidation). By a letter dated 26 October 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claims should not be struck out on the basis that they had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment text does not restate the underlying cause of action; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment text does not restate the underlying cause of action; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment text does not restate the underlying cause of action; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.