Case 2301598/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Stodar v GMTC Ltd (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301598/2020
- Decision date
- 30 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Stodar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal stated that GMTC Ltd 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 that basis, the tribunal treated the proceedings as procedurally barred unless the necessary consent or permission had been obtained.
The tribunal also recorded that on 20 October 2020 it had given the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment does not identify any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim.
The result was that the claim was struck out. The judgment is a short procedural decision and does not record any remedy, liability finding, or split between different heads of claim in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying claim type(s); it states only that 'the claim' was struck out. The respondent was in administration and the tribunal referred to the Insolvency Act 1986 consent/permission requirement and the claimant's failure to provide an acceptable reason after being given an opportunity on 20 October 2020. | 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.