Ms C Byrne v Maximus Services UK Ltd and Ingeus UK Ltd: 2309170/2024 and 2304559/2023
REASONS
[1]On 10 March 2025, a letter was sent to the parties proposing the claim against the 2nd respondent be struck out. I caused this letter to be sent because both respondents indicate that the claimant’s employment never transferred to the 2nd respondent.[2]It appeared to me that there may be no basis upon which to litigate a claim against the 2nd respondent. The claimant was given the opportunity to confirm whether she agreed or disagreed that her employment had not transferred to the 2nd respondent. She was also told this was her opportunity to explain why a claim against the 2nd respondent should continue.[3]The claimant had until the end of 17 March 2025 to provide a response to the letter. In my view, 7 days was sufficient to allow the claimant to set out why she was bringing a claim against the 2nd respondent because the claim was already brought and the claimant should be confident that the claim has a sound footing. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2309170/2024 & 2304559/2023[4]On 12 March 2025, the claimant’s new solicitor wrote to the Tribunal to explain that they had been newly instructed and had seen the letter. The letter asked for until 14 March 2025 to reply to the letter in order to take full instructions before responding. 14 March 2025 was before the strike out warning expired.[5]The deadline to respond to the letter remained 18 March 2025. No application has been made to extend the deadline and so no extension was given. It is now 10 April 2025 and there has been no response to the letter.[6]I keep in mind that this is a case with a protracted case management history. The claimant has missed deadlines and directions on numerous occasions. In the last hearing I presided over, I found that the claimant had behaved unreasonably in the litigation through lack of response to directions, and the claimant narrowly avoided a costs order being made against her. I made clear to the claimant at that hearing the importance of responding to Tribunal deadlines and complying with deadlines. I recall that I really could not have been any clearer.[7]The claimant was given adequate warning I was considering striking out the claim against the 2nd respondent. She has had the opportunity to make representations in writing over the course of the last calendar month but has not done so. It does not appear to me that any claims are sustainable (or even advanced) against the 2nd respondent.[8]In those circumstances, where I have such a view and the claimant has failed to provide a response when directed to do so, it is proportionate to strike out the claim.[9]The claim against the 2nd respondent is struck out. Approved by: