Mrs Aileen Harrower v LLP and 1 other — 2021

At a remote preliminary hearing on 7 May 2021, Employment Judge Kemp dealt with applications in the linked cases 4104095/2020, 4104097/2020, 4107500/2020 and 4107501/2020. The hearing did not determine the substantive employment claims. The tribunal first refused the claimants' Rule 39 application for a deposit order linked to the respondents' strike-out application, holding that Rule 39 was directed to allegations or arguments in a claim or response and that it was not appropriate to use it for an application founded on the alleged conduct of a representative.

The tribunal granted reconsideration of the 8 December 2020 rejection of the claims against the third and fourth respondents and directed service of the claim forms on those respondents. In doing so it referred to Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal (Early Conciliation Exemption and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014 and the approach in Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust. The judge noted the claimants' case that the added respondents had acted as agents of the first respondent under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010, while making clear that any jurisdictional challenge by the new respondents could still be taken separately.

The tribunal also refused the claimants' request to bar the first and second respondents from further participation in the December 2020 claims. It held that there was no rule providing for a respondent to be barred in the circumstances described, noted that response forms had eventually been accepted after extensions of time, and considered that the repeated and overlapping pleadings in the July and December 2020 claim forms weighed against the application under the overriding objective. A further preliminary hearing on 18 May 2021 was left to deal with the respondents' strike-out application and other case management matters.