Case 1807266/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Stainforth v Yorkshire Reclaim Flooring Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807266/2019
- Decision date
- 29 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Stainforth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe proceedings were stayed in March 2021 after the respondent company had been dissolved. The tribunal told the claimant that he would need to restore the company to the register and that the claim might be struck out if he did not do so, or if any application to do so was refused.
When the tribunal later wrote on 21 September 2021, the claimant said he could not afford to pay to have the company re-registered and said Mr Dunn was operating a different company and avoiding payment. The tribunal noted that the claim was against the company that had employed the claimant, not any other company operated by Mr Dunn.
The tribunal found that the respondent company remained dissolved and that the claimant had not taken steps to have it re-registered. It held that the claim had therefore not been actively pursued and struck it out. No substantive merits findings or remedy award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only that 'the claim is struck out' and does not specify the underlying pleaded heads of claim in the reasons section. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.