Case 3315199/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Al-om v Movingfeast (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315199/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Al-om
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr T Al-om's claim against Movingfeast (in administration). 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 continue, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The tribunal also noted that on 29 May 2025 it had given the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason.
On that basis, the tribunal ordered that the claim be struck out. The extracted judgment does not record any substantive determination of the merits and does not identify any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying cause of action. The tribunal struck out the claim because the respondent was in administration and neither the administrator's consent nor the court's permission had been obtained for the proceedings to continue under the Insolvency Act 1986, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable reason after being invited on 29 May 2025 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.