[1]The claimant’s claims of unlawful deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 are struck out.[2]The claim for breach of contract is not stuck out but is subject to the attached deposit order.
REASONS
[1]The claimant presented claims of unlawful deduction from wages, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay under the working Time Regulations, breach of contract and unfair dismissal by ET1 dated 30 April 2021.[2]At a case management preliminary hearing on 1 September 2021, the claim of unfair dismissal was withdrawn. A further preliminary hearing was fixed for today’s date to consider the respondent’s strike out application, on the basis that:-a. the claim was not an employee or worker of the respondent. His contract to provide legal services was/is with Omar Shams Law Firm trading as Healy’s Egypt which was a wholly separate entity to the respondent firm.b. The matters raised by the claimant are not within the tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction as the professional services provided by the claimant were outside the jurisdiction, namely in Egypt.[3]The respondent has sought strike out of the claims on the basis that they have no reasonable prospects of success. Preliminary issues[4]The respondent’s counsel requested the claimant disclose his home address, as the address provided on the application was not the claimant’s home address. I was provided with an address for the claimant namely Building 4, 231 Degla Maadi, Cairo, Egypt 11728. The claimant’s address is amended accordingly.[5]The respondent’s counsel explained that he wished the tribunal to make deposit orders, in the event that he was unsuccessful in his primary position that all the claims should be struck out. I allowed the claimant’s counsel to take instructions on the claimant’s means, in order that I could deal with this.[6]A joint bundle was to be lodged by 5 January 2022. The respondent’s solicitors lodged two joint bundles on 5 January 2021. The claimant’s solicitors lodged two consecutively numbered bundles on 9 and 10 January 2021, which were intended to replace the second of the joint bundles lodged by the respondent. I shall refer to the bundle lodged on 5 January 2021 as the first bundle and the bundles lodged on 9 and 10 January 2021 as the second bundle.[7]The respondent’s counsel objected to the inclusion of a number of the documents within the second bundle, and in particular two witness statements and the exhibits referred to in those statements, as these were lodged late and he had not had sufficient time to take instructions. I refused to allow the two witness statements to be included within the bundle. When fixing today’s preliminary hearing,