Mr. Charles Instone v Phytobrands Ltd. Date: 13 April 2022 — 2022

The claimant, Mr Charles Instone, brought claims for unfair dismissal under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and breach of contract against Phytobrands Ltd. At a preliminary hearing on 10 December 2021, the matter had been listed for a final merits hearing in July 2022. Before that hearing, the respondent entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation and Mr Andy Barron of Parker Andrews confirmed by email on 9 March 2022 that the employment tribunal claim would not be defended as part of the liquidation.

The claimant then applied for the respondent’s ET3 response to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that the case was not being actively pursued, and also sought judgment under Rule 21(2). The tribunal recorded that, by the date of the judgment, it had received no objection from Parker Andrews or any other party, and was satisfied that the respondent had had a reasonable opportunity to make representations about the application.

The tribunal granted the application, struck out the response under Rule 37(1)(d), and gave judgment for the claimant on both claims. It found, on the material available, that the claimant was entitled to the relief sought and that doing so accorded with the overriding objective.

The judgment ordered payment of a total of £55,255, made up of a £1,088 basic award and £50,000 compensatory award on the unfair dismissal claim, together with a £4,167 award for breach of contract. The order was stayed until 27 April 2022, with provision for a further stay if a timely application to vary or set aside was made.