Case 3302175/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L E Betteridge v Steptronic Footwear Limited (in administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302175/2022
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L E Betteridge
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Steptronic Footwear Limited (in administration), had not had the consent of the administrator or the permission of the court for the proceedings to continue, which the tribunal said was required by the Insolvency Act 1986. The tribunal also recorded that on 24 April 2024 it gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive findings on the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify or determine individual substantive heads of claim; it records that 'the claim is struck out' because the respondent is in administration, consent of the administrator or permission of the court had not been obtained, and the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason after being asked on 24 April 2024 why the claim should not be struck out for non-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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.