Miss T Owens v Prestek Computing Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) and The Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 3306960/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3306960/2022

Between

Miss T OwensClaimant

Prestek Computing Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) and The Secretary of State for Business and TradeRespondent

Date 20 March 2024

JUDGMENT

The claim is struck out.

REASONS

[1]The first respondent company is in compulsory liquidation. The permission of the court has not been obtained for these proceedings to be instituted or continued as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.

[2]On 27 February 2024 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to give written reasons within 14 days why the claim should not be struck out as it had not been actively pursued. The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason. The claim is therefore struck out.

[1]The first respondent is in compulsory liquidation.

[2]On 27 February 2024 a “strike out warning” was sent to the claimant saying that a judge was proposing to strike out her claim on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. This was because it appeared that she had taken no steps to obtain permission of the court (not the employment tribunal) for her claim to proceed.

[3]On 11 March 2024 the claimant wrote to the tribunal referring back to an earlier email she had sent on 20 July 2023, saying “I would very much like to proceed with permission to continue this case.”, and saying that she was trying to get advice from the CAB.

[4]On 11 April 2024 the parties were sent a judgment striking out the claimant’s claim.

[5]On 25 April 2024 the claimant wrote saying “may I stress how important it is for a reconsideration on this judgment. I would like to request to discuss orally upon approval due to the miss communication that has led to this judgment. The consistent vital correspondence from my self has not been added to the file for the judge to review.” Case No: 3306960/2022

[6]In response to this I prepared an order dated 1 May 2024 pointing out that whatever the rights and wrong of that her application for reconsideration does not address the reason why her claim was struck out: that she had not sought or obtained court permission to continue with the claim. I ordered that “if the claimant wishes her reconsideration application to be considered she must, within 14 days of this order being sent to the parties, explain what steps she has taken to obtain permission from the relevant court for her claim to continue, and whether those steps have been successful.” The order was sent to the parties on 7 May 2024.

[7]On 21 May 2024 the claimant replied, saying “Please can you confirm this vital information can all be discussed and highlighted verbally as per previous email request I sent? This is detrimental to make sure the miss communication that has taken place over several months does not happen again”.

[8]Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure requires that an application for reconsideration is made in writing. Under rule 72 “An employment judge shall consider any application made under rule 71. If a judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked … the application shall be refused …”.

[9]I understand the claimant’s recent emails to be a request to make her application for reconsideration verbally at a hearing, but there is no provision in the employment tribunal rules for this to be done. There may be an oral hearing if the reconsideration application passes the initial stage of review by the employment judge, but there is no facility for the application itself to be made verbally. The claimant has not identified in her claim form any disability that may limit her ability to express herself in writing. Accordingly there is no provision for the verbal application that the claimant wishes to make. Whatever the “miscommunication” the claimant is referring to I have seen nothing to suggest that she has made any application to a relevant court for permission to continue with her claim, and she has now been given at least two opportunities to say that she has made such an application. In those circumstances I find that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and her application for reconsideration of the judgment is refused.