Mr J Freshney v Auto Colour Solutions Ltd and William Webster: 2602199/2018
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim succeeds against the second respondent and the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at the hearing already listed on 22/03/2019. Employment Judge P Britton _____________________________ Date: 19 February 2019 Case No:2602199/2018 6.8 Judgment on Withdrawal rule 52 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Freshney Respondent: 1) Autocolour Solutions William Webster[1]Upon application made by the 2nd Respondent the Default Judgment issued against him on 21 February 2019 is revoked.[2]Otherwise the claim is dismissed it not having been actively pursued as to which see the REASONS.[3]The hearing listed for 22 March 2019 is cancelled.REASONS
On the 1 March 2019 at the direction of Regional Employment Judge Swann the Claimant was written to by way of a Strike Out Warning requiring him to show cause by 8 March 2019 as to why his claim should not be struck out because it has not been actively pursued. He has failed to reply and accordingly the claim is struck out. ___________________________ Employment Judge P Britton 19 March 2019 _____________________________ Case No:2602199/18 6.9 Judgment on Withdrawal – part - rule 52 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. Johnathan Freshney First Respondent: Autocolour Solutions Limited Second Respondent: Mr. William Webster Heard at: Nottingham On: 27 September 2019 Before: Employment Judge Rachel Broughton Representation Claimant: In person First Respondent: Dissolved Second Respondent: Mr William Webster JUDGMENT[1]At a hearing on the 27 September 2019 the claimant confirmed that his previous employer was the first respondent, he brought with him to the hearing a copy of his contract of employment and bank statements to evidence that the employing entity was the first respondent. The second respondent is a former director of the first respondent.[2]The first respondent company has been dissolved.[3]The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claims for unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract and claim for unpaid statutory paternity pay as against the second respondent. The claims have no reasonable prospect of success and the claims against the second respondent are therefore struck out under Rule 37 (1) (a). Case No: 2602199/18 Page 2 of 2[4]The proceedings against the first respondent are stayed.[5]An order may be varied or revoked upon application by a person affected by the order or by a judge on his/her own initiative.