Case 6011406/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Reeves v Codec – Trading as Spore London Limited (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011406/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Reeves
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 28 November 2024, the Tribunal told the claimant that the claim was stayed because the respondent was in administration. The Tribunal explained that the claimant could not continue without the written agreement of the Administrator or an Order from the High Court giving permission to proceed, and said an Employment Judge would review the position in six months.
When that review took place, the claimant had not contacted the Tribunal since the letter was issued and had not provided any agreement from the Administrator or any High Court order. The Tribunal recorded that no other representations had been made by the claimant. It therefore concluded that the claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the individual heads of claim. It states only that 'the claim' was stayed because the respondent was in administration and was later struck out because the claimant had not contacted the Tribunal, had not provided written agreement from the Administrator or an Order from the High Court, and the Tribunal concluded the claim was 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.