Case 2305699/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Solmar Finance Inc and Glenbrook Associates Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305699/2019
- Decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Grisley brought her claim on 28 December 2019 and had been employed from 1 February 2016 to 4 August 2019 as a Household and Property Manager. At the preliminary hearing on 10 June 2021, the tribunal considered the respondents' application under Rule 34 to remove Werner Erhard and Barbara Stevenson from the proceedings. It accepted the documentary evidence that the claimant was engaged by Solmar Finance Inc and Glenbrook Associates Limited, not by the individual respondents, and dismissed the claims against the Third and Fourth Respondents.
The tribunal recorded that the First and Second Respondents had accepted the tribunal's jurisdiction. Mr Rogerson argued that the Third Respondent was the claimant's employer and controlled how she did her job, but the tribunal held there was no basis for individual liability for the unfair dismissal and money claims. It noted that the inclusion of the individuals was by association rather than on any contractual basis, and commented that the inclusion of the Fourth Respondent was particularly difficult to explain even on the claimant's own case.
The tribunal also refused the claimant's 14 January 2021 application to amend the ET1 to include a complaint framed as injury to feelings. It explained that injury to feelings is the compensation that may be awarded in discrimination cases, and that the real issue was whether she could add a new discrimination claim. The proposed allegations were treated as a new harassment claim based on race and national origin, with 'education' not being a protected characteristic.
The amendment was refused because it was an entirely new cause of action, was very significantly out of time, and would prejudice the respondents by requiring them to meet a materially different case and to find witness evidence going back four years. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, or other money claims in this judgment, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims against the Third Respondent (Werner Erhard) and Fourth Respondent (Barbara Stevenson) were removed under Rule 34 and dismissed; the tribunal found no basis for individual liability because the claimant was engaged by the First and Second Respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's 14 January 2021 application to amend the ET1 to add a discrimination complaint was refused. The tribunal treated it as a wholly new race/national-origin harassment claim; 'education' was not a protected characteristic. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 34
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.