Case 2400167/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Roach v Liverpool First Collaborative Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400167/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Roach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. In a letter dated 17 February 2020, the tribunal told the claimant that it appeared she was bringing a claim against a dissolved company. The claimant replied that she was applying to have the company restored to the register.
On 29 August 2020 the tribunal asked the claimant whether such an application had been made. There was no reply, so on 9 October 2020 the tribunal wrote again and said it appeared the claim was not being actively pursued. That letter invited representations as to why the claim should not be struck out, but none were made.
Because there were no representations, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment was issued without a hearing, and it records the decision of Employment Judge Horne dated 4 December 2020 and sent to the parties on 14 December 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify any substantive cause of action; it records only that the claim was struck out under Rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.