Miss I Wilson v Audagio Services Ltd and Bluebird Care Company Ltd: 1400759/2019
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The claim against the second Respondent succeeds and the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. _____________________________ Employment Judge Harper MBE Date: 11th April 2019 Case Number: 1400759/2019 THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL SITTING AT: SOUTHAMPTON BEFORE: EMPLOYMENT JUDGE EMERTON (sitting alone) BETWEEN: Ms I Wilson Claimant AND(1) Audagio Services Limited(2) Bluebird Care Company Limited Respondents ON: 29 November 2019 APPEARANCES: For the claimant: Mr P Wareing (Counsel) For the first respondent: Mr L Hutchings (Solicitor) For the second respondent: Mr R Bhatt (Counsel) JUDGMENT AT PRELIMINARY HEARING Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rules 70 and 34[1]The Rule 21 judgment against the second respondent (Bluebird Care Company Limited), sent to the parties 12 April 2019, is revoked upon reconsideration, under Rule 70.[2]The parties are agreed that the first respondent (Audagio Services Limited) was at all material times the claimant’s employer and that the second respondent was wrongly included in the claim.[3]In the circumstances, the second respondent is removed from proceedings under Rule 34.[4]The claims proceed only against Audagio Services Limited, which shall henceforward be referred to as “the respondent”. Case Number: 1400759/2019