Case 2401389/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Copelands Transport Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401389/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims because the respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. The judgment records that this applied to the respondent, Copelands Transport Limited (in compulsory liquidation), in the joined proceedings under case numbers 2401389/2024 and 2401435/2024.
The tribunal also noted that on 15 January 2025 and 14 February 2025 it had given the claimants an opportunity to provide written reasons within 14 days why the claims should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimants did not provide an acceptable reason, and the tribunal therefore struck out the claims. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Johnson on 17 March 2025 and sent to the parties on 4 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this decision; the judgment text itself only states that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this decision; the judgment text itself only states that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this decision; the judgment text itself only states that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this decision; the judgment text itself only states that the claims were struck out. | 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.