Case 3307457/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Smart v Concorde Tyre & Exhaust Centres Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3307457/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Smart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr E Smart's claim against Concorde Tyre & Exhaust Centres Limited. The reasons record that the respondent company was in administration and 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 5 May 2019, it gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason. For those reasons, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment was sent to the parties on 2 August 2019 and was signed by Employment Judge Ord.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that 'the claim is struck out'. It does not identify the substantive heads of claim in the reasons; the GOV.UK listing for the case refers to breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time, but those categories are not set out in the judgment text itself. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.