Case 8002203/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J MacNeil v Coille Haulage Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002203/2025
- Decision date
- 16 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J MacNeil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr J MacNeil's claim against Coille Haulage Ltd (In Liquidation) under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. No monetary award was recorded.
The respondent company was in compulsory liquidation. On 12 September 2025, the claimant was notified that court consent was required under the Insolvency Act 1986 for the proceedings to be instituted or continued. No consent had been obtained. Following an enquiry from the tribunal on 18 March 2026, the claimant replied on 26 March that they were taking steps to obtain consent.
The claimant did not respond to a request dated 2 April 2026 for an update within 28 days, or to reminders dated 8 and 19 May. On 28 May, the tribunal gave the claimant until 11 June to explain why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. No response was received, and the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type. The claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Insolvency Act 1986: court consent to institute or continue proceedings
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.