Case 2400696/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Barnett v Ace Scaffolding (M/CR) Limited (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400696/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Barnett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Ms E Barnett's claim against Ace Scaffolding (M/CR) Limited (In Administration). Employment Judge Batten recorded that the respondent company was in administration and that neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to continue, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The Tribunal also noted that on 2 December 2024 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.
On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out. The judgment records no substantive findings on liability and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not describe the underlying substantive claim, but the GOV.UK listing for this case categorises it as breach of contract. The claim was struck out because the respondent was in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable reason after being given an opportunity on 2 December 2024 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.