Miss Malgorzata Agnieszka Zarzecka v Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd and ITC EOT Trustee Ltd — 2025

This was the third preliminary hearing, heard in Manchester on 17 December 2024 before Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal checked that notice of hearing had been sent to the correct address, that the respondent’s solicitors had corresponded with her and sent the bundle, and that no postponement had been requested. It therefore proceeded in the claimant’s absence as proportionate under rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.

The tribunal struck out the claims against ITC EOT Trustee Limited because it could see no rational basis for them. It noted that the claimant had not been employed by the second respondent, that the first respondent was her only employer, and that the second respondent was only a vehicle for holding shares in the first respondent company and had no employees. On that basis, the tribunal found the claims against the second respondent had no reasonable prospects of success.

The tribunal did not make deposit orders at this hearing. It said the remaining claims against the first respondent appeared weak, and it identified concerns about the allegations of detriments for making protected disclosures, direct sex discrimination, victimisation, equal pay, and the amended sex discrimination and victimisation issues. However, it said it would not make deposit orders without hearing from the claimant, and the lists of issues against the first respondent were treated as settled for case-management purposes rather than finally determined on their merits.