Case 2405050/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McBride v SLG DB Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405050/2022
- Decision date
- 4 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McBride
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out Mr C McBride's claim against SLG DB Limited (in compulsory liquidation). The tribunal recorded that the respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and that permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The tribunal also noted that on 27 September 2023 it had given the claimant 14 days to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The extracted judgment does not specify the substantive heads of claim, only that the claim was struck out in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted text. The whole claim was struck out because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the claimant had not obtained permission of the court to institute or continue the proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986. The tribunal also said that, after being given 14 days on 27 September 2023 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit, the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason. | 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.