Mr M Biniak v Interpreter Ms B Monk K Wit -Biniak and 1 other — 2026

Mr M Biniak brought claims of disability, age, religion or belief and marriage discrimination, together with claims for unpaid holiday pay, arrears of pay and a redundancy payment. This preliminary judgment addressed the identity of his employer and whether proceedings could continue against either respondent. The tribunal dismissed the proceedings against Katarzyna Wit-Biniak and sisted, or suspended, those against Polish Yellow Pages Limited for three months. It did not determine the substantive merits of the claims.

At the hearing, the claimant repeatedly identified Polish Yellow Pages Limited as his employer. He argued that Ms Wit-Biniak controlled the company, made its financial decisions and had signed his employment contract. The tribunal found no pleadings or submissions at that hearing supporting her inclusion as an individual respondent. After the hearing, he maintained that she had personally employed him as a sole trader. The tribunal held that, even if she had once employed him in that capacity, the business no longer existed and could not still employ him. It also noted that the reconstructed payslips showed no payments.

The tribunal distinguished documents concerning Yellow Media Digital Company Limited from those concerning the second respondent. A payslip and P60 supported past employment with Yellow Media Digital Company Limited, which was dissolved in November 2018. The claimant no longer pursued his application to add that company as a respondent. The tribunal understood the second respondent to be Polish Yellow Pages Limited, company number SC532137. The claimant supplied a P60 relating to earnings from that company for the tax year ending in 2020 and accepted that it had been dissolved on 28 September 2021.

The claimant supplied correspondence about restoring the second respondent to the Register of Companies. The tribunal found that his restoration application was made in September 2025, after the tribunal proceedings began. Edinburgh Sheriff Court had returned an application he drafted, and no restoration application was currently before the courts. Because the dissolved company did not exist, proceedings against it could not currently continue. The tribunal allowed three months for the claimant to lodge the necessary documentation and required a progress report by 6 November 2026.

As there was currently no valid respondent, the tribunal deferred consideration of all outstanding applications pending further procedure. These included applications for expenses, disclosure and a preparation time order. The judgment recorded no monetary award.