Case 2500533/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss J Cottiss 2. Mrs G Thompson v E. Hoults (in compulsory liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500533/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Miss J Cottiss 2. Mrs G Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, E. Hoults (in compulsory liquidation), was said to be in compulsory liquidation, and the tribunal stated that permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. The judgment accordingly struck out the claims.
The tribunal also recorded that, on 13 December 2023, the claimants were given 14 days to provide written reasons why the claims should not be struck out for having not been actively pursued. No acceptable reason was provided, and Employment Judge Aspden therefore struck out the claims in case numbers 2500533/2023 and 2500535/2023 on 2 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claims collectively and does not separate the underlying heads; this head is taken from the case listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment strikes out the claims collectively and does not separate the underlying heads; this head is taken from the case listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claims collectively and does not separate the underlying heads; this head is taken from the case listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Insolvency Act 1986 permission requirement
- 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.