Case 2204080/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Power by Britishvolt Ltd (in Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204080/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe parties made a joint application on 3 May 2023 inviting the Tribunal to give judgment by consent under Rule 64 in the terms of an attached Consent Order. Employment Judge Stout said that, although this was an unusual course, it was appropriate on this occasion to issue judgment in the agreed terms. The judgment was signed on 5 June 2023 and sent to the parties on 6 June 2023.
The Respondent was Power by Britishvolt Limited (in administration). The Judge noted that the Claimants were represented and that any costs incurred by the administrators in defending the proceedings would reduce the funds available to meet the Respondent’s debts, including agreed debts to the Claimants. The Judge also noted that the Secretary of State had not been joined, but might be liable for the sums claimed if the Respondent had insufficient funds, so Rule 96 could potentially apply.
The Judge did not consider it necessary to delay judgment to allow the Secretary of State to be joined as a party. If that view was wrong, the Secretary of State could apply for the judgment to be reconsidered under Rule 70. The extracted text does not set out any further factual findings or any monetary terms of the attached Consent Order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Judgment entered by consent under Rule 64 in the terms of an attached Consent Order. The extracted text does not state the protected period, the agreed sum, or any separate merits findings. | Upheld | — | — |
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.