Case 1400315/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Taylor Mrs E Rodger Mr N Rodger v People Plus STRIKE OUT — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400315/2025
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Taylor Mrs E Rodger Mr N Rodger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out the claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The claims were for notice pay following the death of Julian Chambers, with the claimants saying People Plus handled HR, payroll and related payments, while the respondent said it was not their employer.
The tribunal noted that a payroll administrator does not become an employer merely by administering payroll. However, because redundancy payments had been made after Mr Chambers' death and the mechanics of the relationship between People Plus, Mr Chambers and the claimants were unclear, the tribunal could not assume the respondent's explanation on a strike-out application.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The claims were not struck out and were listed for a short video hearing on the issue of whether People Plus was the claimants' employer.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The stated claim was for notice pay. The judgment only decided that the claimants' claims were not struck out and would proceed to a short hearing; it did not determine liability or remedy. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Hussain v UPS UKEAT/0221/17/DM
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College [2011] IRLR 217
- Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
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.