Case 3201957/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Griffiths v Maplin Electronics (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201957/2018
- Decision date
- 2 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Griffiths' claim against Maplin Electronics Ltd (In Administration). It recorded that the respondent company was in administration and that neither the Administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The tribunal also noted that on 8 January 2020 it had given the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment contains no merits determination and records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because the respondent company was in administration and neither the consent of the Administrator nor permission of the court had been obtained to institute or continue the proceedings, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. It also records that the claimant had been given an opportunity on 8 January 2020 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit, but failed to give an acceptable reason. No merits findings were made. | 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.