Ms R White (Counsel) For the v Mr C Price — 2021

Ms Walley presented claims in August 2019 against Windsor House Property Services Limited, later Neville Clarke Limited, for unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay, failure to provide a statement of particulars, and other unspecified payments. A liquidator was appointed to the company on 23 October 2019, and the statement of affairs showed that the company owed Mr Jellyman £243,373. The Claimant later obtained an order joining Mr Jellyman as a respondent, after EJ Perry found there were substantial and important issues between the parties and that it was in the interests of justice to add him.

Mr Jellyman then applied to set aside that joinder order under Rule 29, or to renew the Rule 34 application, and in the alternative sought strike out under Rule 37 or a deposit order under Rule 39. The judge set out the interests-of-justice language in Rules 29 and 34, the two-stage approach to strike out from HM Prison Service v Dolby as approved in Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd, and the caution that strike out is a rare step where the central facts are disputed. The judgment also referred to Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly, Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, Romanowska v Aspirations Care Ltd, Ukegheson v London Borough of Haringey, Community Law Clinics Solicitors Ltd v Methuen, and Ahir v British Airways plc.

On the material before the tribunal, the judge thought the evidence appeared to favour Mr Jellyman’s case that Clarke was the employer, but there remained disputed issues, including some salary payments made by Mr Jellyman personally, the day-to-day control exercised, the manner in which the Claimant was treated and used, and unresolved disclosure issues. The judge held that this was not an exceptional case for strike out and did not justify a deposit order. The Second Respondent’s applications were dismissed, and the substantive dispute was left to be determined at a full merits hearing.