(1) Mr Daniele Rivolta (2) Mr Antonino Alderuccio v Plant Hub Organic Ltd — 2022

The tribunal did not hear the cases on the merits because the respondent company had been dissolved on 6 September 2022, after the claims were presented and before any ET3 was located as filed. The tribunal recorded that, because the respondent was no longer a legal entity, the claims could only proceed if the company were restored to the Register of Companies. The hearing therefore could not proceed and the proceedings were stayed.

Mr Rivolta withdrew his unfair dismissal claim at the hearing when he conceded that he did not have the required continuous service. The tribunal dismissed that unfair dismissal claim. It also found, on the evidence before it, that Mr Rivolta’s employment had run from 1 June 2021 until 20 January 2022 and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider his other claims.

Mr Alderuccio gave evidence that he had been employed by Plant Hub Limited from 20 August 2018 and that his employment later transferred to the respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, with continuity preserved. On that basis the tribunal found that he had sufficient service and that it had jurisdiction to hear all of his claims, including unfair dismissal. No substantive liability findings or monetary awards were made because the proceedings were stayed.

The judgment also notes that the claim of Miss V Mendes against the same respondent had been stayed for the same reason, and that she had withdrawn her claim in these proceedings and continued with her separate case.