Case 6007747/2024 · Employment Tribunal
David Cummins v Melior Sport Ltd (“in voluntary administration”) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007747/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Cummins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 April 2025, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out for not being actively pursued. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK listing category because the judgment itself does not identify the individual causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out for not being actively pursued. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK listing category because the judgment itself does not identify the individual causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out for not being actively pursued. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK listing category because the judgment itself does not identify the individual causes of action. | 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.