Mr M Keary v 1) Green Spring Education Trust 2) Miss Caroline Rawes 3) Adrian Laure 4) Mulberry Schools Trust (Discharged 11 July 2019) — 2019

This reconsideration judgment concerned an application by Mulberry Schools Trust, supported by the other respondents, to be discharged from the proceedings after it had been joined as Fourth Respondent by order dated 9 January 2019. The claimant, acting without attendance or representation but relying on written representations, had applied to join the Trust because the school had transferred from the First Respondent to the Fourth Respondent in about August 2018, and he said the transfer agreement meant the Fourth Respondent would take responsibility for any liability owed to him by the First Respondent.

Employment Judge Hyde accepted the Fourth Respondent's submission that rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 imposed a narrower test than the previous wording considered in Beresford v Sovereign House Estate UK EA/0405/11. The tribunal held that there must be issues between the proposed party and existing parties that fall within the tribunal's jurisdiction, and found that this was not satisfied on the facts of the application.

The tribunal found that the real reason for the claimant's attempt to join the Fourth Respondent was related to possible enforcement of any future judgment against the First Respondent, rather than because he was seeking a finding that the Fourth Respondent had discriminated against him directly or vicariously. The tribunal held that it had no power to allocate liability for its judgment to a third party and that there was therefore no issue within its jurisdiction between the Fourth Respondent and the claimant, or between the Fourth Respondent and the First Respondent, for the tribunal to determine.

For those reasons, the tribunal revoked the order made on 9 January 2019 joining Mulberry Schools Trust and discharged it from the proceedings forthwith. This judgment did not determine the underlying liability issues in the claimant's substantive claims, which remained outside the scope of this reconsideration decision.