Case 2404475/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Clough v Target Gas Utility Services Ltd (dissolved company) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2404475/2018
- Decision date
- 3 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Clough
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out Mr S Clough's claim against Target Gas Utility Services Ltd (dissolved company). The judgment states that the respondent company was in administration and was dissolved on 5 December 2019. It also records that neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained before the proceedings were instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The Tribunal further noted that on 25 June 2020 it gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to give an acceptable reason.
For those reasons, the Tribunal struck out the claim. No merits findings or remedy award are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because the respondent company had been dissolved on 5 December 2019 without the required consent of the Administrator or permission of the court under the Insolvency Act 1986, and because the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason after being invited on 25 June 2020 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because the respondent company had been dissolved on 5 December 2019 without the required consent of the Administrator or permission of the court under the Insolvency Act 1986, and because the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason after being invited on 25 June 2020 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.