Case 1801451/2025 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss M Clowrey (2) Miss A Ford v Moolab Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 1801451/2025
- Decision date
- 14 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Miss M Clowrey (2) Miss A Ford
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claims because there was no potentially liable respondent still in existence. It found that Miss Ford began work for Moo Lab S60 Ltd on 1 September 2019 and that Miss Clowrey did so on 1 February 2022. Although Miss Ford's salary was sometimes paid by Moo Lab 2 S41, the tribunal found this was a payroll arrangement between associated companies and did not amount to a change of employer.
The tribunal found that the employer later changed to Moo Lab (Holdings) Ltd, which made the final salary payment, issued the P45 and was the dismissing employer. The judge would have been prepared to substitute that company as the correct respondent, but it had been dissolved by compulsory liquidation on 11 August 2026. The tribunal did not consider it proportionate to stay the proceedings for a possible application to restore a company to the register and dismissed the claims without deciding their merits.
No remedy was awarded. The tribunal said the claimants were clearly still owed money and, because their former employer was insolvent, might be able to apply to the Redundancy Payments Office.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim was dismissed because no potentially liable respondent remained in existence, rather than after a determination of its merits. The tribunal said the claimants were clearly still owed money and might be able to apply to the Redundancy Payments Office. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim was dismissed because no potentially liable respondent remained in existence, rather than after a determination of its merits. The reasons do not separately describe the working time claim. | 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.