Case 3213380/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Lander v The Estate of Christopher Huckle and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213380/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones On
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr C Lander
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lander had already brought claim 3200580/2020 against his employer, Incodia International Ltd, which included constructive unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages and disability-related complaints. He later issued this separate claim against the three individual respondents after an earlier attempt to add them to the first case had been refused. Employment Judge Jones dealt with the respondents' strike-out application on the papers and applied the rule in Henderson v Henderson, together with the principles in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co.
The tribunal found that the claimant already had the material on which he relied when he issued the first claim, had legal representation at that stage, and did not explain why the individual respondents were not named then. It concluded that the discrimination arising from disability and harassment complaints against the individuals were complaints that could and should have been brought in the earlier proceedings, and that bringing them in this second claim was an abuse of process. The tribunal also noted that the employer accepted vicarious liability and appeared able to meet any liability, but that did not prevent strike-out.
The tribunal further held that the unlawful deduction of wages and constructive unfair dismissal complaints could not be brought against the individual respondents because those causes of action lie only against an employer under sections 13 and 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear those complaints against the named individuals. The whole of claim 3213380/2020 was struck out. The claimant's reasonable-adjustments complaint had been withdrawn by letter dated 14 January 2021 and was dismissed in a separate judgment issued the same day.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the complaint as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. It found the claimant had the relevant facts when he issued his first claim against the employer and could and should have brought the individual respondents into that earlier claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal treated this as part of the disability-based complaints that should have been brought in the earlier claim. It was struck out as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that this complaint could not proceed against the individual respondents because only an employer can be liable for deductions from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that this complaint could not proceed against the individual respondents because constructive unfair dismissal can only be brought against an employer under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule in Henderson v Henderson
- Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
- sections 13 and 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37(a) and/or (b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.