Case 1308160/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Boyce v Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308160/2022
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and that the permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to continue, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. On that basis, and after considering the insolvency issue, the tribunal held that the proceedings could not continue in their present form.
The tribunal also noted that on 19 March 2024 it had given the claimant 14 days to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
No substantive liability findings or remedy award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not adjudicate the underlying substantive claims; it records that the entire claim was struck out because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and permission of the court had not been obtained, and because the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason after being given an opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.