In person For the First v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal was dealing with 33 remaining claims after 7 of the original 40 claimants had withdrawn. The underlying dispute was an unpaid annual bonus claim under the claimants' contracts of employment. The tribunal found that the original joinder of Precision Proco Group Limited had been an error and substituted Precision Printing Company Limited as the correct second respondent because it was the TUPE transferee of the business assets of Photobox Limited.

The bonus clause provided for eligibility for a discretionary bonus of up to 10% of salary, but stated that the bonus would not accrue and would not be payable unless the employee was employed and not under notice when the bonus was paid. The tribunal recorded that the bonus relating to the year ended 30 April 2020 had been delayed from June 2021 to December 2021 because of the respondent's stated Covid-19 and cash-flow concerns, and that it was eventually paid in December 2021 to those still employed then.

The tribunal split the remaining claims into three groups. Claimants 1 to 26, including the lead claimant, had already received the bonus in December 2021, so the tribunal held they had no reasonable prospect of succeeding in claims for monies already paid. Claimants 27 to 30 had transferred to the second respondent but resigned before the December payment; the tribunal held that clause 8.2 meant they were not entitled to the bonus because they were no longer employed when payment was made. The final three claimants had resigned before the transfer and were treated in the same way, because they were also not employed at the payment date.

The tribunal considered the line of authority including Braganza v BP Shipping Limited & Anr and Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation, but concluded that the respondents were able to rely on the plain wording of clause 8.2 rather than any challenge to a discretionary decision. It held that all 33 remaining claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under Rule 37(1)(a).