Case 3313070/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Drive Software Solutions Ltd (in liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313070/2023
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal reconsidered its earlier decision of its own volition while preparing written reasons. It found that the First Respondent had been dissolved on 18 May 2025 and therefore no award, including a redundancy payment, could be made against it unless the company was restored to the register.
The unpaid wages and notice pay claims against the First Respondent were brought outside the three-month time limit. The tribunal found no grounds showing that it was not reasonably practicable to bring those claims in time, so it had no jurisdiction and dismissed them.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade had rejected the claimant's application on 12 May 2023 and advised him of tribunal time limits. The tribunal found the later claim was out of time under section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and dismissed the complaints against the Second Respondent for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described the unpaid wages claim against the First Respondent as brought out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal described the notice pay claim against the First Respondent as brought out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claim against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was received out of time under section 188 ERA 1996 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. It also stated that no redundancy payment award could be made against the First Respondent because it had been dissolved and no longer legally existed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 71 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.