Case 2402492/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Carillion Services Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation) & Others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402492/2018
- Decision date
- 8 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese proceedings involved multiple claimants against Carillion Services Limited, Carillion Construction Limited, Carillion PLC, Carillion Energy Services Limited, Carillion (AM) Limited and Postworth Limited t/a Skyblue, all in compulsory liquidation since January 2018. The tribunal recorded that permission had been granted for the protective award claims under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and those claims had already been determined.
For the remaining claims, none of the claimants had obtained permission from the insolvency court to pursue claims against the respondent companies, and none said that they had made such an application. By letter dated 22 December 2023 the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claims should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit.
The claimants did not reply. Applying Rule 37(1)(d), the Regional Employment Judge held that the remaining claims had not been actively pursued and struck them out. The judgment does not contain any substantive merits findings on the underlying heads of claim, only the procedural strike out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out together with the other remaining claims; the judgment did not give separate merits reasoning for this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out together with the other remaining claims; the judgment did not give separate merits reasoning for this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out together with the other remaining claims; the judgment did not give separate merits reasoning for this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out together with the other remaining claims; the judgment did not give separate merits reasoning for this head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.