In person For the First v Respondent — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge JM Wade at Leeds on 8 August 2019. The claimant appeared in person. The tribunal recorded that he had previously agreed the usual transaction documents with advice, and that he had later started new employment on 1 June 2019 at a salary of £60,000 as a managing director.

The tribunal examined the claim form, the grounds of claim and the claimant's agenda for the hearing. It noted that box 4 on the claim form, dealing with cases where the respondent is not the claimant's employer, was blank. It also held that nothing in the professionally drafted grounds of claim showed that whistleblowing detriment claims were being advanced against the former directors, and that the reference to suspension in August 2018 appeared only in the background section. The tribunal said that if amendment had been sought there would have been limitation issues in relation to suspension as an act of detriment.

Mr Carnell argued that the investor directors had taken all decisions and may have been de facto employers. The tribunal rejected that approach, saying the arrangements had been agreed between businesspeople and that the documents would identify the employing entity. It also observed that the matters pleaded looked more like a minority shareholder dispute and that the claimant was also a creditor of the company because of directors' loans, over which the tribunal had no jurisdiction.

The proceedings against the second and third respondents were struck out under Rule 37 because the tribunal found no discernible cause of action against them. The proceedings against the first respondent were not determined at this hearing; they were stayed pending permission of the administrator or an order of the court because the company was in administration.