Miss E Digby v St Faith’s and Others: 3323058/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]At the relevant times, for the purposes of the claimant’s claim, her employer was the 2nd respondent – The Leys and St Faith’s Schools Foundation – which is a registered charity (1144035) and a registered company limited by guarantee (07748737).[2]Accordingly, acting under rules 29, 34 and 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents are removed from the proceedings; or alternatively the claim against those respondents is dismissed or otherwise struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The title of the proceedings shall be amended accordingly.[3]The claim now proceeds only against the 2nd respondent (as identified in paragraph 1 of the Judgment above) either as an original respondent to the claim or in substitution for the other respondents.[4]The ET3 response and grounds of resistance presented by or on behalf of the 2nd respondent shall be treated as the response of that respondent (as identified in paragraph 1 of the Judgment above) and as validly accepted by the Tribunal. Case No: 3323058/2021 2[1]The final hearing of the claim remains listed for 10 days between 9-20 October 2023.[2]With the agreement of the parties, the existing case management orders and case management timetable are suspended.[3]With the agreement of the parties, a Judicial Mediation of 1 day by way of a preliminary hearing held in private via CVP has been re-listed commencing at 9.30am on 23 November 2022.[4]The claimant shall prepare an updated Schedule of Loss and each party shall prepare a short position statement of no more than 2 pages, and these documents shall be exchanged between the parties (and copied to the Tribunal) by 16 November 2022. By that date, the respondent shall also prepare a short electronic bundle comprising only the pleadings, any case management documents and this Judgment and Order for the use of the judge conducting the Judicial Mediation (and it shall copy that to the claimant).[5]Depending upon the outcome of the Judicial Mediation, and at his or her judicial discretion, the judge at that hearing may convert the hearing into a case management hearing (in private or in public as the rules might require) in order to deal with: any applications the parties might make on notice to each other and the Tribunal; outstanding matters of case management; and the case management orders and case management timetable necessary for the final hearing.[6]At the present hearing, and after discussion, neither party pursued various applications of which notice had been given. Subject to the overriding objective, any outstanding matters of concern or in dispute (such as disclosure and/or admissibility of “without prejudice” documents) may be addressed in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Order.[7]The claimant’s application under rule 62 made at this hearing for written reasons for the Judgment above is granted. Written reasons will be provided as soon as possible. ________________________________ Judge Brian Doyle DATE: 10 October 2022REASONS
[1]These are the written reasons for an oral, ex tempore judgment delivered in summary form at the conclusion of a one-day preliminary hearing to determine, among other things, the correct respondent to this claim. The claimant made a request for written reasons under rule 62 at the hearing itself.[2]References in square brackets below are to pages in the documents bundles put before the Tribunal.[3]The claimant was represented by her partner, Mr Jordan. The respondents were represented by Ms Trencher, a solicitor. Case No: 3323058/2021 2 Procedural history[4]Following early conciliation involving various prospective respondents between 13 September 2021 and 30 October 2021 [6-10], the claimant presented an ET1 claim to the Tribunal on 23 November 2021 [11-91]. The claim was said to arise from the claimant’s employment as a teacher at St Faith’s School in Cambridge between 1 September 2018 and 21 June 2021. In fact, the claimant was first employed at the school in 2007, but the respondents’ position is that there was a break in her employment in or around 2018. The claim is primarily a claim for unfair dismissal, but there are other jurisdictional complaints referred to within it [86-91].[5]Responses to the claim on form ET3 were presented by the various respondents on 11 January 2022 [92-113 from the 2nd respondent and 114-159 from the other respondents]. The 2nd respondent, The Leys and St Faith’s Schools Foundation, accepted that it was the claimant’s employer and that it was the correct respondent to the proceedings rather than the remaining respondents.[6]The claimant provided further and better particulars of her claim dated 26 May 2022 [164-169]. The claimant did not accept that the 2nd respondent was the correct and/or only respondent.[7]A preliminary hearing for case management purposes took place on 29 June 2022 before