Case 1800997/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Meow Hospitality Ltd (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800997/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with claims in case numbers 1800997/2019, 1800998/2019 and 1800999/2019 against Meow Hospitality Limited (In Administration). It recorded that the respondent company was in administration and that neither the consent of the administrator nor permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
On 16 December 2019 the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claims.
The judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability on the underlying employment claims, and it does not record any monetary award. The only outcome recorded is strike out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment covers case numbers 1800997/2019, 1800998/2019 and 1800999/2019. It states that the claims were struck out because the respondent company was in administration and neither the administrator's consent nor permission of the court had been obtained, and because the claimants did not give an acceptable reason after being asked to explain why the claims should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.