Case 3315211/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Konstantinova v Arcadian living — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315211/2022
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Konstantinova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mrs L Konstantinova's claim against Arcadian Living Limited (in administration) on 7 May 2024. The reasons given were 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 25 March 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. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
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 states only that the claim was struck out because the respondent was in administration and neither the Administrator's consent nor the permission of the court had been obtained to institute or continue the proceedings, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable reason in response to the Tribunal's 25 March 2024 invitation. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Insolvency Act 1986
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.