in person For the v Respondent — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 25 August 2020, the tribunal considered strike out and deposit order applications in the claimant's consolidated claims against R2, R3 and R4, together with applications for specific disclosure and further and better particulars. The claimant had been employed by R1 as a sales director from 2 January 2019 until 24 May 2019. The hearing was concerned with whether the other respondents could be treated as employers, agents, or secondary wrongdoers for the claimant's discrimination and harassment allegations.

The tribunal held that the employment contract and offer letter showed the employment relationship was with R1, not R2 or R3. Clause 14 of the contract, which referred to confidentiality obligations involving group companies, did not establish employment or agency. The claimant's arguments that he was a contract worker or worker of R2 or R3 did not succeed, and the tribunal said the claim against R3 disclosed no reasonable prospect of success. The claims against AST & SCIENCE LLC were therefore struck out under rule 37.

As to Nanoavionika UAB t/a Nanoavionika LLC, the tribunal accepted there was a specific power of attorney and some evidence of control within the group, but it was not satisfied that this was enough to establish agency in relation to the alleged discriminatory acts. It held that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order of £150. The same result followed for Mr A Avellan: the tribunal rejected an abuse of process point, accepted that he may have known about the termination because of the intertwined management structure, but held that it was still unlikely that the claimant could establish the elements of section 112 of the Equality Act 2010, including that Mr Avellan knowingly helped a contravention and could not rely on section 112(2). A deposit order of £150 was made, and the tribunal also refused the claimant's applications for specific disclosure and further and better particulars.