Case 2402749/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Prosperous Life Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402749/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim. It 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 be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The tribunal also recorded that, on 22 August 2023, 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, Employment Judge Batten ordered that the claim be struck out. The judgment does not record any determination on the merits of the underlying claims or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment disposes of the case as 'the claim' and does not identify the underlying pleaded claim types in the reasons. 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 under the Insolvency Act 1986, and because the claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason after being given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. | 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.