Case 3200918/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Nunes v Calita Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200918/2019
- Decision date
- 13 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Nunes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Calita Ltd was in administration. It held that neither the consent of the administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. On that basis, the tribunal treated the matter as procedurally barred.
The tribunal also noted that on 5 February 2020 it had given Mr J Nunes an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason in response.
For those reasons, Employment Judge Burgher struck out the claim. No remedy or award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim in the reasons section; the GOV.UK listing classifies the case as breach of contract. The claim was struck out because the respondent was in administration and neither the administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained, and because the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason after being invited on 5 February 2020 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. | 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.