Case 4107323/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Trainer v Utilitywise plc (in Administration) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107323/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Trainer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant had brought complaints of redundancy payment, breach of contract and unpaid wages against Utilitywise PLC (in Administration) and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
By letter dated 8 February 2020, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why those complaints should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to unpaid wages. It was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.