Case 2408706/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Morrison v Unity Service Group Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408706/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Morrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent company was in compulsory liquidation, and the tribunal recorded that the permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to continue as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. The tribunal also noted that the claim had not been actively pursued.
On 13 November 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant 14 days to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. Judgment was sent to the parties on 19 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not distinguish this head separately; the claim was struck out as a whole because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not distinguish this head separately; the claim was struck out as a whole because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not distinguish this head separately; the claim was struck out as a whole because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not distinguish this head separately; the claim was struck out as a whole because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not distinguish this head separately; the claim was struck out as a whole because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained. | 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.