Cases8000342/2024

Claimant v First Endeavour LLP (in Compulsory Liquidation)

17 January 2025Before Employment Judge A KempScotlandon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out for non-pursuit under rule 38(1)(d). Claimant failed to obtain court permission to proceed despite respondent being in compulsory liquidation, and failed to respond to strike-out warning letter.

Facts

The claimant brought a claim against First Endeavour LLP which entered compulsory liquidation. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 29 May 2024 advising that court permission was required to proceed. Despite a reminder on 3 December 2024 and a strike-out warning on 24 December 2024, the claimant failed to respond or provide confirmation of obtaining the necessary court consent.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to obtain court permission to proceed against a respondent in compulsory liquidation and did not respond to multiple tribunal communications including a final warning.

Practical note

When a respondent enters compulsory liquidation, claimants must obtain court permission to continue proceedings and must actively respond to tribunal correspondence or risk strike-out for non-pursuit.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38(1)(d)

Case details

Case number
8000342/2024
Decision date
17 January 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No