Claimant v Quickcharge LTD (in administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the respondent company is in administration and neither the consent of the Administrator nor permission of the court was obtained 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 11 December 2024.
Facts
The claimant brought a claim against Quickcharge Ltd, a company in administration. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity on 11 December 2024 to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out for failure to actively pursue it. The claimant failed to provide acceptable reasons and had not obtained the required consent from the Administrator or court permission under the Insolvency Act 1986.
Decision
Employment Judge Anstis struck out the claim on two grounds: the claimant had not obtained the necessary consent of the Administrator or court permission required by the Insolvency Act 1986 to continue proceedings against a company in administration, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or 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 alongside non-pursuit will result in strike-out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3307537/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No