Cases1302736/2023

Claimant v Tapri Delivery UK Ltd

14 July 2025Before Employment Judge Maxwellon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out for two reasons: (1) respondent company is in compulsory liquidation and required court permission under Insolvency Act 1986 was not obtained to continue proceedings; (2) claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and did not provide acceptable reasons when given 14 days to do so by tribunal order dated 7 May 2025.

Facts

Mr Bhusal brought a claim against Tapri Delivery UK Ltd, a delivery company. The respondent company subsequently went into compulsory liquidation. On 7 May 2025, the tribunal gave the claimant 14 days to explain why the claim should not be struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim on two grounds: first, the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the claimant had not obtained the required court permission under the Insolvency Act 1986 to continue proceedings; second, the claimant had failed to actively pursue the claim and provided no acceptable explanation when given the opportunity.

Practical note

Claims against companies in compulsory liquidation require court permission to proceed under insolvency legislation, and claimants must actively pursue their claims or risk strike-out even where the respondent is insolvent.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Insolvency Act 1986

Case details

Case number
1302736/2023
Decision date
14 July 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No