Case 3314544/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S J Czoboriek v Giffen Couch & Archer — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314544/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S J Czoboriek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded 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 recorded that, on 30 July 2022, 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.
On those bases, the Tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying employment complaint and no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a substantive claim type; it records that the claim was struck out because the respondent company was in administration and because the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason after being invited to explain why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.