Case 3307537/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Shoebridge v Quickcharge Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307537/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Shoebridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Quickcharge Ltd (in administration), was in administration at the time of the judgment. The tribunal recorded 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. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out.
The tribunal also noted that on 11 December 2024 it had given 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. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
No remedy was awarded and the judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability on the underlying employment claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out because the respondent company was in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained for the proceedings, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable written reason after being invited to do so on 11 December 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the respondent company was in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained for the proceedings, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable written reason after being invited to do so on 11 December 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out because the respondent company was in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained for the proceedings, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable written reason after being invited to do so on 11 December 2024. | 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.