Case 3205649/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Popenco v TA Boxall & Co. Limited (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205649/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Popenco
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Popenco presented his claim on 23 November 2022 seeking a redundancy payment and unpaid wages against TA Boxall & Co. Limited (in administration). The respondent had entered administration on 10 November 2022 and no response was received. At a hearing on 18 May 2023, Judge Illing identified that the claim form had originally been sent to the wrong registered office after the administration and ordered it to be re-served, with the claimant to seek the administrator's consent for the claim to continue by 31 August 2023.
At the final hearing on 6 September 2023 before Employment Judge Russell, neither party attended and there was no message about any difficulty attending. The tribunal noted that the claim form had been re-served but no response had been received and the claimant had not corresponded with the tribunal. On that basis, the tribunal found there was no administrator consent to the claim being pursued.
The judge concluded it was not in the interests of justice or the overriding objective to postpone the hearing again. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the tribunal concluded there was no administrator consent to the claim being pursued and it was not in the interests of justice to postpone the hearing again. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because there was no administrator consent to continue the claim and no attendance or correspondence from the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.