Mr J Hamilton v Barrier Ex Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2021

This preliminary hearing concerned whether the claimant’s claims against Barrier Limited should be struck out, and, in the alternative, whether a deposit order should be made. The tribunal identified the claims against the second respondent as unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, breach of contract (notice pay), and unlawful deduction of wages. It also noted that the first respondent was in administration and was not taking part in the hearing, apart from written representations.

Applying the strike-out jurisdiction under Rule 37, and referring to the employee-status authorities cited in the hearing, the tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that he was employed by both respondents concurrently throughout his employment from 2016 to dismissal. It found no evidence of a continuous or ongoing relationship with the second respondent, no sufficient basis for mutuality of obligation, and no basis for saying the claimant had been integrated into the second respondent’s business so as to require it to provide him with work or him to accept it.

The tribunal also treated the handbook, contract, emails, wage payments, and PAYE points as insufficient to alter that conclusion. It noted doubt about whether the second respondent’s handbook was incorporated into the contract, and that even on the claimant’s preferred version of the contract the second respondent was named only as guarantor. The claimant’s own case was that payments from the second respondent were sporadic, which the tribunal said did not show the kind of regular employment relationship needed for the claims advanced.

As a result, all claims against the second respondent were struck out. Because the strike-out application succeeded, the tribunal dismissed the respondent’s alternative application for a deposit order of £1,000.