Mr N Schofield v Bolton Textiles (Group) Limited Joshua Dawson Philip Andrew Dawson — 2019

At this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Sherratt dealt with the claimant's application to add Joshua Dawson and Philip Andrew Dawson as individual respondents to proceedings already brought against Bolton Textiles (Group) Limited. The Tribunal held that the correct identity of the company respondent was Bolton Textiles (Group) Limited, company registration number 10717887, and that the two individuals should be added only for the purposes of the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims.

The Tribunal referred to rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and section 109 of the Equality Act 2010. It also noted the Presidential Guidance on General Case Management (2018), including the guidance on adding or removing parties. The individuals had been named in the narrative particulars of claim, but they had not been named on the Early Conciliation certificates and were not parties when the case was commenced.

In considering timeliness and prejudice, the Tribunal recorded that the claimant's effective date of termination was 29 March 2018, ACAS notification was on 27 June, the certificate was issued on 27 July, the ET1 was received on 25 August, and the application to add the two respondents was made on 27 August 2018. The Tribunal accepted that the application was made without significant delay, that an Early Conciliation certificate was not required where a party is added by amendment, and that the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant because of the risk that the company respondent might become insolvent and leave the Equality Act claims without a remedy.

The Tribunal therefore added Joshua Dawson as the second respondent and Philip Andrew Dawson as the third respondent for the Equality Act claims only. It allowed the company to serve an amended response and directed that the individual respondents file their own responses by 22 March 2019. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the claimant's discrimination, unfair dismissal, or breach of contract claims in this judgment.