Claimant v Limitless Flooring Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out for two reasons: the respondent company is in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor court permission was obtained to continue proceedings as required by the Insolvency Act 1986; and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and did not provide acceptable reasons when given the opportunity on 12 May 2025.
Facts
Mr Coleman brought an employment claim against Limitless Flooring Ltd, which subsequently entered administration. The claimant did not obtain the required consent from the Administrator or court permission to continue the proceedings as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. On 12 May 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for failure to actively pursue it, but the claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason.
Decision
Employment Judge Quill struck out the claim on two grounds: first, the necessary consent to continue proceedings against a company in administration had not been obtained; and second, the claimant had failed to actively pursue the claim and could not provide acceptable reasons for this failure when given the opportunity.
Practical note
When a respondent company enters administration, claimants must obtain the Administrator's consent or court permission under the Insolvency Act 1986 to continue tribunal proceedings, and failure to actively pursue a claim will result in strike-out even where the respondent is insolvent.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306234/2021
- Decision date
- 9 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No