Claimant v Cabaret Club (West End) Ltd and others — 2020

At the preliminary hearing on 27 July 2020, Employment Judge Brown dealt with the identity of the Claimant's employer and whether any respondent should be struck out. The Claimant, appearing in person, said he had claims for unfair dismissal, protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, holiday pay, daily rest breaks, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract. The First and Second Respondents were in creditors' voluntary liquidation.

The tribunal accepted that The Strand Photography Gallery Limited was the Claimant's employer at the time of dismissal. It relied on the Claimant's payslips, HMRC records and P60, which showed payments from Cabaret Club West End Ltd, Proud Publishing Ltd and then The Strand Photography Gallery Ltd, and it found that the Claimant's employment TUPE transferred to the Fourth Respondent before the dismissal on 7 February 2020. The Strand Photography Gallery Limited was therefore added as Fourth Respondent under rule 34 ET Rules of Procedure 2013.

Alexander Proud was struck out as a respondent. The tribunal found that the Claimant had not alleged that Mr Proud made the rota decisions or criticised him for making protected disclosures, so there was no basis for liability under s47B ERA 1996 on the facts alleged. It also held that any claim for inducing breach of contract would lie in the High Court rather than the Employment Tribunal, so there was no claim against Mr Proud with a reasonable prospect of success. The claims against the First and Second Respondents were not struck out at this stage, and no substantive merits or remedy decision was made in this hearing.