Case 2305578/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Terry Boateng v FutureFuel Technology Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305578/2019
- Decision date
- 30 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beckett
- Venue
- London South Tribunals via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Terry Boateng
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for final hearing on 30 November 2020 in respect of claims described as redundancy payments, unpaid wages and compensation. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent appeared in person before Employment Judge Beckett sitting alone. The ET1 was received on 19 December 2019 and the ET3 was filed on 7 February 2020.
At the hearing, the claimant confirmed that he could not pursue a redundancy pay claim because he had not worked for the respondent for the requisite 2 year period. The respondent accepted that the claimant was owed 2 months' wages. No final determination or monetary award was made on either issue in this decision.
The tribunal checked Companies House and found that FutureFuel Technology Limited was in compulsory liquidation, following a winding up order made on 18 February 2020. The tribunal recorded that, because of the compulsory liquidation, the Insolvency Act 1986 prevented legal proceedings from being instituted or continued against the company without permission of the court.
The judgment therefore stayed the proceedings. It noted that if the claimant later obtained permission to continue the claim, he should send the court order to the Employment Tribunal office immediately, and that an Employment Judge would consider the position again in 6 months. If no application was made, or if permission was refused, the judge indicated the claim might be considered for strike out for not being actively pursued. The written judgment also records that if the claimant decided to abandon the claim, the tribunal had to be informed in writing that it was withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | At the hearing the claimant confirmed he did not have the requisite 2 years' service to pursue a redundancy pay claim. The tribunal did not determine the claim on the merits because the proceedings were stayed. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent accepted at the hearing that the claimant was owed 2 months' wages, but the tribunal made no substantive award because the proceedings were stayed due to the respondent's compulsory liquidation. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The case was listed as including a claim for compensation, but the written decision does not identify any separate substantive determination of that issue before the proceedings were stayed. | Other | — | — |
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.