Ms R Ashworth and Mrs G Neill v Nicola Barrett T/a Nicola Tanning Ltd: 2403969/2018 and Others
JUDGMENT
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICEREASONS
[1]At the outset of the hearing, the claimants agreed and it was evident from the payslips, P60, Companies House records and the final accounts, that the correct respondent was Nicola Tanning Limited and I amended the respondent’s name to that.[2]Mr Barrett explained that the company had ceased to trade and I checked the companies house record which showed that the company had been dissolved on 8th August 2019. No application has been made by the claimants to restore the company to the register. Case Nos: 2403969/2018 2403970/2018 2403972/2018 2403973/2018 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant - rule 72[3]Mr Barrett represents a legal entity that no longer exists; he therefore has no locus, or standing, to pursue a reconsideration application and I refused it on that basis.[4]The claimants were dismissed for redundancy when the business ceased to trade. Mr Barrett accepted that no redundancy payments were made. He states that notice and holiday pay entitlements were met. I was not persuaded by his assertion and decided that, even if Mr Barrett does have standing to pursue his application for reconsideration, it is refused as I do not consider that there is any reasonable prospect of my decision that the claimants were owed compensation for unfair dismissal limited to redundancy payments and loss of statutory rights, notice and holiday pay being varied or revoked.