Case 3319534/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Buraimoh v Caversham Finance Limited t/a Brighthouse — 2021
- Case reference
- 3319534/2019
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Buraimoh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out the claim. Employment Judge R Lewis recorded that the respondent company was in administration and that neither the Administrator's consent 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 3 February 2021 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 concluded that the claim should be struck out.
The judgment does not record any substantive liability findings, remedy award, or split of any monetary compensation. It was sent to the parties on 25 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action; it records only that the claim was struck out because the respondent company was in administration and the consent of the Administrator or permission of the court had not been obtained, and because the claimant did not give an acceptable reason after being asked on 3 February 2021 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.