ABC v Dexters London Ltd and Burlington Estates Ltd: 2217495/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The application of the 1st and 2nd respondent under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a), to strike out the s.13 TUPE Regulations claim – failure to consult – because it has no reasonable prosects of success, fails.[2]The application of the 1st and 2nd respondents under Employment Tribunal Rule 40(1)(a), for a deposit order in respect of the s.13 TUPE Regulations claim – failure to consult – because it has little reasonable prosects of success, fails.[3]The application of the 2nd respondent under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a), to strike out the Equality Act 2010 s.26 claim - harassment related to disability – because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this claim and it has no reasonable prospects of success, fails. v3 10.2.25 Case number: 2217495/2024[4]The application of the 2nd respondent under Employment Tribunal Rule 40(1)(a), for a deposit order in respect of the Equality Act 2010 s.26 claim - harassment related to disability - because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this claim and it has no reasonable prospects of success, fails.[5]The application of the claimant to amend his claim to add a claim of wrongful dismissal fails, as it was reasonably practicable to bring this claim within the primary limitation period. Approved by