Case 3309691/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chaudhry v Paperchase Products Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309691/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Chaudhry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Chaudhry had earlier brought unfair dismissal proceedings against Paperchase Products Ltd in case 3306647/2019, which were stayed when the employer entered administration. In case 3309691/2022 he issued a new claim naming Paperchase again and the Secretary of State, seeking a declaration that the Secretary of State should pay the basic award he said would have been due under section 184(1)(d) ERA 1996. The tribunal found that he had been employed by Paperchase from about November 2010 to about October 2018, and noted that he had submitted a proof of debt in the administration for £35,880.40 based on a schedule of loss that included a £4,826 basic award and the maximum compensatory award.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim against Paperchase under Rule 37 as an abuse of process. It held that the new claim duplicated the stayed claim in 3306647/2019, which was still before the tribunal, and that Paperchase did not need to be named again in order to pursue the Part XII insolvency payment claim against the Secretary of State. The tribunal also said that, even if it had not struck the claim out, the claim against Paperchase would have failed because it was presented out of time.
As to the Secretary of State, the tribunal dismissed the application under section 188(3) ERA 1996. It held that section 184(1)(d) refers to an actual basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal within the statutory scheme in sections 112 and 118, so a tribunal decision on unfair dismissal and remedy is required before the Secretary of State is obliged to make payment. The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on Graysons Restaurants and Jones, held that section 187 did not make the administrator's acceptance of the proof of debt determinative, and concluded that the Directive arguments did not require reading section 184(1)(d) as covering a notional basic award. No tribunal award was made in this case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against Paperchase Products Ltd was struck out under Rule 37 as an abuse of process because it duplicated the stayed unfair dismissal claim in case 3306647/2019. The tribunal also said it would have failed as out of time if not struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Application against the Secretary of State under section 188(3) ERA 1996 for a declaration that payment should be made under section 182/184(1)(d) ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal held that an actual tribunal decision on unfair dismissal and remedy is required before the Secretary of State is obliged to pay a basic award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- res judicata
- cause of action estoppel
- issue estoppel
- Henderson v Henderson
- abuse of process
- Rule 37
- s.182 ERA 1996
- s.184(1)(d) ERA 1996
- s.187 ERA 1996
- s.188(3) ERA 1996
- s.112 ERA 1996
- s.118 ERA 1996
- Graysons Restaurants Ltd v Jones
- Jones v Secretary of State for Employment
- Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac Seats
- Johnson v Unisys Limited
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.