Case 6019319/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Danny Williams v 1.Giorgio’s Restaurants Limited (In Creditors voluntary liquidation) 2.Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019319/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Danny Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe extract does not identify the underlying substantive claim type, but it records that the Tribunal wrote to Mr Danny Williams asking whether he had received sums from the RPS in respect of his claims and, if so, whether the claim or claims were still pursued or withdrawn. A further email asked for the status of the case against Giorgio’s Restaurants Limited.
The Tribunal then issued a strike-out warning under Rule 38, stating that the claimant had not complied with earlier directions and that the claim was not being actively pursued. It gave the claimant an opportunity to object or request a hearing, but the reasons state that he did not make written representations or make any sufficient representations to prevent strike-out.
The claim was therefore struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d). The judgment does not record any merits determination or monetary award. It was approved by Employment Judge Woodhead on 9 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 8 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extract does not state the underlying substantive claim type; the judgment only records that the claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.