Claimant v EVCL Chill Limited (in administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out because the respondent company is in administration and the claimant failed to obtain consent of the Administrator or permission of the court to continue proceedings as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. Additionally, the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and did not provide acceptable reasons when given the opportunity on 25 July 2022.
Facts
Mr Clotoe brought a claim against EVCL Chill Limited. The respondent company entered administration. The claimant did not obtain the necessary consent from the Administrator or court permission to continue proceedings as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. On 25 July 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to provide acceptable reasons.
Decision
Employment Judge Alliott struck out the claim on two grounds: first, the mandatory requirement under the Insolvency Act 1986 for consent or permission to proceed against a company in administration was not met; second, the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and provided no acceptable explanation 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 will result in the claim being struck out regardless of merit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3322556/2021
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No