Case 3319425/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Neisz v The Burger Chain Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319425/2019
- Decision date
- 12 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Neisz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that The Burger Chain Limited was in administration. It found 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 noted that on 12 December 2020 the claimant was given an opportunity to explain in writing why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason.
On those grounds, the tribunal struck out the claim. No merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 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 under the Insolvency Act 1986. The claimant was also given an opportunity on 12 December 2020 to give written reasons why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit, but did not provide an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.