Case 3320583/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wareing, Counsel – written submissions For the v Mr C Brazier, Solicitor – written submissions — 2019
- Case reference
- 3320583/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wareing, Counsel – written submissions For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, and personal injury said to arise from depression and bipolar. The preliminary hearing was confined to whether the tribunal had jurisdiction against the named respondent, TMD Management Limited, which was accepted to have been dissolved on 28 November 2017.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had also obtained an early conciliation certificate in relation to TMD Technologies Ltd, but he had not issued proceedings against that company and had not made a formal application to substitute it for the dissolved respondent. It considered written submissions only, and addressed the authorities relied on about substitution and early conciliation, including Rule 34, Rule 12, E.ON v Caspall, and Drake International Systems Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd.
The tribunal was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to substitute TMD Technologies Ltd in place of the respondent. It held that a dissolved company is not a legal entity that can be a respondent under Rule 8(2), and accordingly it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims. The claims were struck out and no merits decision or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | No merits determination; the tribunal struck out the claim after holding it had no jurisdiction because the named respondent had been dissolved. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay only; no merits determination because the tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction over the dissolved respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | No merits determination; struck out with the rest of the claim for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No merits determination; struck out after the tribunal held the named respondent was not a legal entity. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim form also pleaded personal injury said to arise from depression and bipolar; the tribunal made no merits finding and struck the claim out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 8(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 12 rejection of claim form / minor error
- Rule 34 substitution in the interests of justice
- E.ON v Caspall [2020] ICR 552
- Drake International Systems Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd [2016] ICR 445
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Drinkwater Sabey Ltd v Burnett [1995] ICR 328
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.