Mr A Haynes v T33 Transport Ltd trading as T33 Logistics Introducti — 2024

This was a Rule 21 judgment with no response from the named respondent. Employment Judge JM Wade noted that a previous judge had identified T33 Couriers Limited as a possible correct respondent, but that company was dissolved. The judge therefore considered it in the interests of justice to identify the respondent as T33 Transport Ltd trading as T33 Logistics, described as the active trading company with the registered office at the same address as that given by the claimant.

The judge was also satisfied under Rule 91 that the claim had in fact come to the attention of the respondent company because it had been sent to its registered office. The only order recorded was that the respondent name be amended in the proceedings as stated above. No liability finding, substantive determination of the underlying claim, or monetary remedy was recorded in this judgment.