Mr D Frame, Solicitor. For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms Storey's employment began on 9 April 2018 and ended on 4 September 2019. The tribunal recorded that the proceedings were issued on 16 December 2019 after early conciliation and after documents obtained through a subject access request identified Leisure Employment Services Limited as the employer. At the open preliminary hearing, the disability discrimination claim was dismissed following withdrawal, and the sex discrimination claim against the first respondent was allowed to proceed.

Applying section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and citing Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Palmer v Southend Borough Council, Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd, and Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant's solicitors to identify the correct employer from the contractual documents, payslips, or by asking the respondents. On that basis, the automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing claim and the breach of contract notice pay claim against Leisure Employment Services Limited were struck out as out of time.

The tribunal also struck out the claims against Bourne Leisure Limited and Bourne Holidays Limited on the basis that they were not the claimant's employer and had no reasonable prospects of success. It declined to substitute the first respondent for the second and third respondents, applying the Selkent amendment principles and the overriding objective. The judge later recorded an application for reconsideration supported by Companies House material suggesting the first respondent was dormant in the relevant years, and said his provisional view remained that the time-bar finding against the first respondent was correct, while the strike-out of the second and third respondents may need to be revisited.