Claimant v Movingfeast (in administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out because respondent is in administration and claimant failed to obtain consent of Administrator or permission of court to continue proceedings as required by Insolvency Act 1986. Claimant also failed to actively pursue claim and did not provide acceptable reasons when given opportunity to do so.
Facts
The claimant Mr Al-om brought employment tribunal proceedings against Movingfeast, a company in administration. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 29 May 2025 inviting him to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out for failing to actively pursue it. The claimant failed to provide acceptable reasons.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim on two grounds: first, the claimant had not obtained the consent of the Administrator or permission of the court to continue proceedings as required by the Insolvency Act 1986; second, the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and could not provide acceptable reasons when given the opportunity.
Practical note
Claims against companies in administration require either the Administrator's consent or court permission to proceed, and failure to obtain this or to actively pursue the claim will result in strike-out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3315199/2022
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No