Mr R Peat v T Butler and Sons — 2021

Case reference: 3303687/2019
Decision date: 18 October 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Peat

Respondent

T Butler and Sons

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the respondent company was in administration. It found 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.

The tribunal also noted that on 25 September 2021 it had given the claimant 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 give an acceptable reason.

For those reasons, the tribunal struck out the claim. No compensation or other remedy was awarded in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not specify the underlying cause of action in the extracted text. The claim was struck out because the respondent company was in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable reason after being invited to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.