Case 3200515/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mariola Dzazga v Avo Distribution Group Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200515/2024
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mariola Dzazga
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a claim against AVO Distribution Group Ltd for unpaid wages for December 2023, having left the Respondent's employment on 31 December 2023 and lodged the claim on 1 March 2024. Companies House recorded that on 22 April 2024 the Respondent was placed into creditors' voluntary liquidation, with David Kemp of spf group appointed as insolvency practitioner. Correspondence sent to the liquidator did not produce a response, and the tribunal was unable to confirm the case handler.
The Employment Judge held that a claim against a company in liquidation cannot proceed unless the liquidator consents, and as no consent had been given, the tribunal could not deal with the claim. The judge dismissed the claim on that basis, expressly stating it was not because the claim lacked merit – there was no reason to doubt the Claimant – but because she could pursue the sum as a creditor in the liquidation.
The judgment noted that the Claimant's December wages of £2,916 gross (at £692 per month, below the statutory compensation maximum weekly wage of £700) could be claimed from the Government insolvency scheme if the liquidator had insufficient funds, and directed her to the online claim route at gov.uk.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid December 2023 wages (stated as £2,916 gross; £692 per month). Dismissed not on the merits but because the Respondent entered creditors' voluntary liquidation on 22 April 2024 and the liquidator did not consent to the claim proceeding. The judge noted there was no reason to doubt the Claimant and indicated she could claim from the liquidator as a creditor, or from the Government insolvency scheme if the liquidator lacked funds. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.