Case 1806703/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Agacy v Wetheralds Painting & Building Services Ltd (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806703/2019
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Agacy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Wetheralds Painting & Building Services Ltd (in administration). It then struck out the claim. The judgment records that the respondent company was in administration and that neither the consent of the administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The tribunal also noted that on 17 February 2020 the claimant was given an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. Despite further letters from the tribunal on 21 February, 18 March and 23 March 2020, no acceptable reason was provided. On that basis, and without any merits determination, the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not state the substantive pleaded claim type, but the GOV.UK listing for this case identifies it as unfair dismissal. The tribunal did not determine the merits; it struck out the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Insolvency Act 1986
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.