Cases2400524/2024

Claimant v First Choice Facilities Services Limited

17 February 2025Before Employment Judge HolmesMidlands Weston papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out for two reasons: the respondent company is in administration and neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the court was obtained as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. Additionally, the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and failed to give an acceptable reason when given the opportunity on 10 January 2025.

Facts

Mr Hardman brought an employment claim against First Choice Facilities Services Limited, which was in administration. The tribunal gave the claimant until 10 January 2025 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for failure to actively pursue it. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason. Additionally, neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.

Decision

Employment Judge Holmes struck out the claim on two grounds: the procedural requirement under the Insolvency Act 1986 had not been met, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or provide acceptable reasons when given the opportunity to do so on 10 January 2025.

Practical note

Claims against companies in administration require either the Administrator's consent or court permission to proceed, and claimants must actively pursue their claims or risk strike-out for non-pursuit.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Insolvency Act 1986

Case details

Case number
2400524/2024
Decision date
17 February 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No