Case 6007821/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Karl King v Crown Fit-Out & Refurbishment Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007821/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taft REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karl King
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningKarl King and Crown Fit-Out & Refurbishment Ltd (in administration) did not attend the video hearing at East London Employment Tribunal on 4 November 2025.
Employment Judge Taft dismissed the Claimant's claims pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment recorded no substantive findings on the individual claims and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims collectively pursuant to Rule 47 and does not separately identify or determine this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims collectively pursuant to Rule 47 and does not separately identify or determine this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims collectively pursuant to Rule 47 and does not separately identify or determine this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the Claimant's claims collectively pursuant to Rule 47 and does not separately identify or determine this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.