Case 2500046/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Healthcare Environmental Services Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500046/2019
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not enter a defence, and the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant in March 2019 explaining that he was entitled to judgment in his favour if he provided details of what he was claiming. The Claimant replied on 3 April 2019, and the claim was later transferred to the Leeds office to be dealt with alongside other claims against the same Respondent.
Before judgment was made, the Respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 25 April 2019. The Tribunal informed the Claimant that the claim could not continue without the permission of the Court overseeing the liquidation, and that if permission was not obtained within six months the Tribunal would consider striking out the claim for not being actively pursued.
The Tribunal did not hear from the Claimant after further correspondence asking why the claim should not be struck out, and the claim was struck out by a judgment sent on 10 December 2019. In his application to reinstate the claim, the Claimant did not mention having applied for or obtained the Court's permission, and the Tribunal found no grounds for reinstatement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment concerns refusal of the Claimant's application to reinstate a claim that had previously been struck out for not being actively pursued. The underlying heads of claim are not identified in the judgment text. | 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.