Case 1404361/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alex Loughlin v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, The Insolvency Service and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404361/2023
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 January 2024, at Exeter Tribunal by video, Employment Judge Volkmer heard Mr Alex Loughlin's claims against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Insolvency Service, and Gadget Recycling Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation). The claimant appeared in person and Mr Soni acted as lay representative for the first respondent. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claims for state guaranteed payments out of the National Insurance Fund pursuant to section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded. Those claims were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or any split between heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for state guaranteed payments out of the National Insurance Fund pursuant to section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment dismisses the claim as not well founded; no monetary award is recorded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.