Mr J Rodda v Mr K Dodman — 2021

At the preliminary hearing on 19 March 2021 in Nottingham, before Employment Judge Flint by video, the tribunal considered whether the respondent was correctly identified and whether some or all of the claims should be struck out. The claimant was in person, assisted by Mrs C Whitmore, and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal first dealt with the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37. After the claimant accepted in evidence that his employment with the respondent had started in early March 2018 and ended on 30 December 2019, the tribunal found he did not have two years' continuous employment and struck the unfair dismissal claim out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal then considered the claimant's application to substitute CWK Installations Limited for Mr K Dodman. It refused the application, finding that the proposed substitution did not arise from a genuine mistake and that the injustice and hardship to the respondent from allowing substitution would outweigh the injustice and hardship to the claimant from refusing it. Once substitution was refused, the remaining claims for notice pay, holiday pay, and unpaid tax and National Insurance contributions were struck out under Rule 37.

The respondent applied for costs under Rule 76. The tribunal considered the parties' evidence and correspondence, including letters about the correct respondent and the costs being incurred, and found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in pursuing claims that had no reasonable prospect of success. It therefore made a costs order and summarily assessed the respondent's costs at £8,325. The tribunal also considered the claimant's ability to pay under Rule 84 but maintained the order in the sum of £8,325.