Case 2415981/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Arthur v Lyndon-Dykes Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415981/2020
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Arthur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent, Lyndon-Dykes Limited, was in compulsory liquidation. It held that permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
On 13 April 2022 the tribunal gave the claimant 14 days to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant replied, but only raised dissatisfaction with the system and did not give an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out in light of the respondent's compulsory liquidation.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No substantive findings were made on the underlying employment claims and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the merits of any substantive tribunal claim. It strikes out the claim because the respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and the court's permission had not been obtained under the Insolvency Act 1986; the claimant also did not provide an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out after being given 14 days to respond. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.