Mr D Jones v John McArthur Ams Chartered Accountants: 4101556/2019
JUDGMENT
OF THE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT for redundancy Held In Glasgow on 11 July 2019 Employment Case No: 4101556/2019 Firstly, the claim appeared to be time-barred. ItREASONS
TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) at Glasgow payment. Judge R Gall on 11 July 2019. The claimant The TRIBUNAL claimant Not represented Not present and Respondent In Person Claimant states 1/226 that his matters He had outwith the period of 6 months permitted for presentation of a claim for redundancy pay. that it is just and equitable to extend the time for presentation of such a claim. was that of Mr McArthur, had stated that the employer was Clootie Dumpling Ltd. It appeared that the claimant agreed with being At the end of May 201 9 the claimant had sent to the Tribunal a print from the At the outset of the hearing, Mr Jones, the claimant, confirmed that his claim Ltd as that entity had been his where the business had simply “shut up shop”. There been no formal his claim as there was no formal insolvency and as he did not have a Judgment from a Tribunal awarding him of redundancy payment. Mr McArthur had been a director of the limited In normal circumstances an amendment would have been appropriate so that the respondent became Clootie Dumpling Limited. The claim might then have been served on that entity. The difficulty with that process was however that Clootie Dumpling Ltd no longer existed, having been dissolved. My view was that I could not amend the claim to bring in as respondent an entity which no Certificate led to rejection of that claim. That issue was resolved and the claim There is however an extension of time possible if the Tribunal is persuaded served on Clootie Dumpling Ltd if it was amended so that that entity became Register of Companies which stated that Clootie Dumpling Ltd was dissolved 2019 to present a claim. An issue related to the ACAS Early Conciliation employer. He had brought the claim against Mr McArthur in circumstances insolvency by way of appointment of a liquidator, receiver or administrator. this. That however required to be clarified with the claim potentially was accepted on 13 March 2019. It was therefore presented The second preliminary issue which required to be considered longer existed. I explained that to the claimant. Dumpling identity of employer. The respondent, The Insolvency Service had rejected properly lay against Clootie on 21 May 2019. the respondent. company. 4101556/2019[3]4. 5. 6. 15 20 5 10 15 25 4101556/2019 could potentially be issued. extension of time would remain something to be resolved before Judgment upon them. At any subsequent hearing, the issue of time-bar and possible to be amended so that it was brought against that company and then served If the limited company is restored to the Register then the claim would require in the claim. from the claimant by that time as to any development and any steps desired an Employment months. The Clerk to the Tribunals is requested to bring the file back before The hearing was therefore postponed and the claim is sisted for a period of 2 claimant confirmed that he wished so to proceed. months to enable the steps to be considered Register, service and also exploring potential restoration of the limited company to the steps which the claimant may take of exploring the matter with the Insolvency It seemed to me appropriate therefore to postpone this hearing. Given the limited company is no longer in existence. once more with the Insolvency Service to establish their position now that the said, he wishes to explore that option. He also wishes to take the matter up undertaken, to be made to restore that company Where a limited company has been dissolved it is possible for an application it was in my view appropriate as I understand it, in the Sheriff Court. From what the claimant Judge in mid-September 16 July 2019 12 July 2019 R Gall to the Register. That is a process to sist the claim for a period of 2 if nothing further has been heard and potentially taken. The