Case 2406851/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Whittle, Miss A Bennett, Mr M Adam, Mr S Patel, Ms J Rudden, Mr M Eaton & Miss E Moore v CPR Realisations Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406851/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Whittle, Miss A Bennett, Mr M Adam, Mr S Patel, Ms J Rudden, Mr M Eaton & Miss E Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claims brought by Mr D Whittle, Miss A Bennett, Mr M Adam, Mr S Patel, Ms J Rudden, Mr M Eaton and Miss E Moore against CPR Realisations Ltd (in administration). The judgment records that the respondent was in administration and that neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the Court had been obtained for the proceedings to continue, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
By a letter dated 3 July 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claims should not be struck out for want of active pursuit. The claimants did not make written representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause or causes of action in the extracted text; it records only 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.