Case 6007716/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Anthony Mullins v Alm Bars Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007716/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Williams Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anthony Mullins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 November 2024 Employment Judge A Williams conducted a liability hearing by video. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal had emailed the claimant the day before, had also sent the notice of hearing to the address on the ET1, and telephoned him at 10.30am on the hearing day; he said he was in work and unable to attend. The judge was satisfied that the claimant had adequate notice and proceeded under Rule 47 after making practicable enquiries about his absence.
The respondent had been placed into creditors voluntary liquidation on 20 June 2024, and the joint liquidators wrote on 24 October 2024 confirming that they would not oppose the claim or make representations. The ET1, received on 5 August 2024, sought holiday pay and referred to a service charge, but the claimant did not file any evidence, did not explain how any amount was calculated, and did not provide supporting documents. The judgment also records that a disability discrimination claim had earlier been rejected by Employment Judge Ryan on 20 September 2024.
In the absence of evidence or explanation, the tribunal could not find that the claimant was entitled to any holiday pay or to any amount in relation to the service charge element. It therefore dismissed the holiday pay claim as not well-founded and dismissed the wages/service-charge claim as not well-founded. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant filed no evidence or schedule of loss, so the tribunal could not make findings as to entitlement to holiday pay and dismissed the claim as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant referred to a service charge but did not explain that part of the claim further; the tribunal dealt with it under the 'Wages' heading and dismissed it as not well-founded for want of evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.