Miss Louisa Dillon v (1) DAG Marketing Ltd and 3 others — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing in a claim brought by Miss Louisa Dillon for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments. The tribunal had earlier identified issues including employer identity, dates of employment, and whether there was jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal and redundancy pay complaints given the claimant's less than two years' service. At the 14 January 2019 hearing, the tribunal was dealing with strike-out and deposit-order applications rather than deciding the substantive merits of the employment claims.

The tribunal refused the joint strike-out application. It held that core facts were still in dispute and that a fair trial remained possible at a continued preliminary hearing. It also recorded that DAG Marketing Ltd had been dissolved on 27 November 2018, so the claimant would need to consider whether to seek restoration of that company to the register if she wished to continue against it. No final determination was made on whether DAG Marketing Ltd, Jones Whyte Law, or the individual respondents were the claimant's employer.

The tribunal refused the fourth respondents' application for a deposit order because Mr Gorrie and Mr Whyte had not lodged ET3 responses as individuals and had no locus to apply in that capacity. It granted Jones Whyte Law's application for a deposit order, finding that the allegations against that respondent appeared to have little reasonable prospect of success, but it set the amount at £100 rather than the £1,000 sought after considering the claimant's means. The judgment did not determine the underlying unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, breach of contract or wages claims, and relisting of the part-heard preliminary hearing was deferred until the deposit was paid and the claimant confirmed her position on the dissolved first respondent.