Case 2408824/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Woodlands & others (see attached schedule) v Nest 247 Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408824/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Woodlands & others (see attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent company, Nest 247 Ltd, was in compulsory liquidation. On 2 March 2022, an Employment Judge wrote to the claimants explaining that the Insolvency Act 1986 meant proceedings could not continue against the company without permission of the court, and that it was the claimants' responsibility to apply for that permission.
The Tribunal recorded that permission of the Insolvency and Companies Court had not been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued. On 20 January 2023 the Tribunal invited written reasons within 14 days why the claims should not be struck out as not actively pursued. Ms Traynor and Mr Hartshorn replied, but the Employment Judge concluded they may have been under a misapprehension because the earlier letter had been sent to all claimants and had made the position clear.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the claims were no longer actively pursued, that court consent had not been obtained, and that the claims should therefore be struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Tribunal struck out the grouped claims because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation, permission of the Insolvency and Companies Court had not been obtained to institute or continue the proceedings, and the Employment Judge was satisfied the claims were no longer actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Insolvency Act 1986
- strike out for not actively pursued
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.