Case 3306234/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C J Coleman v Limitless Flooring Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306234/2021
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C J Coleman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out Mr C J Coleman's claim against Limitless Flooring Ltd. The judgment records that the respondent company was in administration and that neither the consent of the Administrator nor permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to continue, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The tribunal also noted that on 12 May 2025 it gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. Mr Coleman did not provide an acceptable reason.
On those procedural grounds alone, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any merits determination, liability finding, or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim because the respondent company was in administration and neither the consent of the Administrator nor permission of the court had been obtained to continue the proceedings, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. The tribunal also recorded that, after giving the claimant an opportunity on 12 May 2025 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued, no acceptable reason was given. | 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.