Mr M Biniak v K Wit-Biniak and Polish Yellow Pages Ltd: 8001883/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is dismissed against the first respondent; and[2]The claim against the second respondent is sisted for three months pending confirmation that a petition has been lodged to restore the company to the Register of Companies. NOTE OF PRELIMINARY HEARING ON CASE MANAGEMENT ISSUES[1]At a first preliminary hearing to consider case management matters which took place on 1 April 2026, this preliminary hearing was listed (to take place in chambers).[2]The claimant had not attended the case management preliminary hearing, his application for a postponement on the grounds of ill-health having been submitted too late to be considered. The first respondent did attend that hearing. ETZ4(WR)[3]At that preliminary hearing it was confirmed that the identity of the employer was a preliminary issue which required to be determined before matters could proceed further.[4]Given the claimant’s concerns about attending in person, and his current health, I decided that the claimant should make submissions in writing, supported by any documentary evidence he wanted to submit, addressing the following questions:(i) What is the correct identity of the employer?(ii) Should the claim be dismissed against any or all respondents?[5]The claimant was advised that, if appropriate, the claimant should re-make any application to add any different respondent, and explain why he believes that respondent to be his employer.[6]The claimant was required to submit any written submissions to the Tribunal by 29 April 2026. He lodged written submissions, and supporting documents, on 2 April 2026, which I have taken into account in my deliberations.[7]The first respondent was to provide any response by 6 May 2026, and she simply confirmed that she was not and never had been the claimant’s employer.[8]On 26 May 2026, the claimant made an application, objecting to any substantive matters being dealt with in chambers, and seeking a hearing in person, with certain reasonable adjustments. Given the issue to be determined could dispose of the claim, I decided that the claimant should be given the opportunity to attend a hearing in person.[9]The claimant made a request for a large number of reasonable adjustments to be made, the majority of which were granted (see letter dated 26 June 2026 to parties). He also made applications for witness orders, but he was advised that as this was a legal question, there was no requirement to hear evidence, and the matter would be dealt with on the basis of written submissions and any supporting documents, supplemented by oral submissions, as requested.[10]Although the claimant had requested, as a reasonable adjustment, that the hearing take place in Ayr Sheriff Court, that was not possible, but it was arranged for the hearing to be held in Ayr in HMCTS premises.[11]The first respondent was invited to attend should she wish to, but it was understood that she had already made her position clear in written submissions.[12]On 26 June 2026, the claimant lodged a large number of supporting documents to be considered at the hearing. He lodged further documents at the hearing, and was given a further opportunity to send in, after the hearing, documents which he said existed to support his claim but which he did not have in his possession. Background[13]The claimant lodged a claim in the Employment Tribunal claiming disability discrimination; age discrimination; discrimination because of religion or belief; marriage discrimination; unpaid holiday pay; arrears of pay and a redundancy payment. The claimant stated that he remains employed with the respondents having commenced employment on 1 March 2009.[14]The claim was eventually accepted as at 12 August 2025 against two different respondents namely Katarzyna Wit-Biniak and Polish Yellow Pages Limited.[15]The first respondent, the claimant’s ex-wife, entered a defence, rejecting the claimant’s allegations, and alleging that “the statements made in the claim are false, misleading and intended to harm me. I have never employed the claimant and this case is entirely without merit”. She asserted that no contract of employment exists or existed, and that any documents lodged to support such a claim are fabrications and forgeries. She asserted that she has never been the employer or employee of any business opened, owned or operated by the claimant and that she has never had any involvement – formal or informal – with his companies.[16]Unusually, the first respondent was initially represented by her social worker who corresponded with the Tribunal and expressed concern for her welfare and that of the couple’s children. The first respondent now represents herself. She has made an application for strike out the claim on the basis that she has never employed the claimant and any documents in her name are fabricated (which has not yet been considered, pending the outcome of the employer identity question).[17]No ET3 was lodged by the second respondent. The service documents were returned, with the envelope marked with a cross and RTS (understood to be return to sender) written on the envelope but no official royal mail stamp. Claimant’s written submissions[18]On 2 April 2026, the claimant lodged written submissions and supporting documents regarding the correct identity of his employer.[19]The claimant lodged documents to support his argument that he was employed by both the first respondent and the second respondent. He argues that the first respondent operates businesses in Scotland, England and Poland. In his initial submissions he referred to a third respondent, namely Yellow Media Digital Company Ltd.[20]The claimant asserted initially that the first respondent is the sole owner and director of Polish Yellow Pages Ltd, part of the AMG Argonauts Media Group PSA and also that she is the owner and director of Yellow Media Digital Company Ltd, also within the AMG group. He asserts that she issued work instructions to him and controlled and continues to control his work and was responsible for his remuneration. He asserted that an employment contract was signed in 2009 and remains valid. He asserted that the employment relationship was registered in Poland and continued in Scotland. Claimant’s oral submissions[21]The claimant’s oral submissions were translated by Ms B Monk, who attended the hearing by video.[22]I explained to the claimant that the claim is currently registered against two respondents, namely Ms K Wit-Biniak and the Polish Yellow Pages Limited.[23]The claimant made reference to a third respondent, Yellow Media Digital Company Limited. I explained that although I was aware that an application to add that third respondent had previously been made that application had not been dealt with.[24]During the course of the hearing the claimant confirmed that his claim is not made against that purported third respondent, so he no longer insists on that application.[25]The claimant had lodged a large number of additional documents for this hearing in person, which he said were selected documents, describing them as “core documents and representative extracts”, and said that further additional documents could be lodged if necessary. The documents which he lodged included the following: Polish employment contract/agreement, English contract of employment, documents from Companies House, Polish business records, selected accounting summaries and invoices.[26]During his submissions, and in answer to questions, the claimant confirmed that: his employer is the second respondent; he remains employed by them; the first respondent has a controlling interest in the second respondent; all financial decisions were made and controlled by her; and she had signed his contract of employment with the company.[27]During the course of his submissions, he indicated that he had a large volume of additional documents with him which he considered would support his submissions. At relevant points during his submissions, the claimant advised of the documents he believed were relevant and passed them up. In respect of certain documents, the claimant said that he could produce them but did not have them with him.[28]The claimant mentioned that the duties of the Polish Yellow Pages Limited had been taken over by another company, Argonauts Media Group, but he did not suggest that he was employed by them. He confirmed that his employer was and remains Polish Yellow Pages Ltd, ie the second respondent.[29]Following discussion it became clear that the claimant accepted that the company was dissolved but that he is in correspondence with Companies House to get it re-established on the Company House Register. He made reference to proceedings in a court in Edinburgh. He said that the company was in the process of being “re-established”.[30]I accordingly afforded the claimant 14 days to lodge documents relating to those submissions and in particular to lodge more recent pay slips relating to his employment with the second respondent as well as correspondence with Companies House relating to the current status of that company. I invited the claimant to send in any additional documents which would otherwise support his position relating to his employer.[31]On 13 July 2026, the claimant made supplementary applications and lodged a number of documents. Many of documents were not however the documents he was invited to submit, and were largely although not exclusively duplicates of documents which he had previously submitted; and employment records; and were largely unrelated to the question to be determined.[32]He did however submit documentation, as requested, to support his contention that he was taking active attempts to restore the second respondent to the register of companies.[33]He also made an application in writing for the immediate continuation of the proceedings against the first respondent personally trading as Polish Yellow Pages and preservation of the claims against the second respondent, Polish Yellow Pages Limited.[34]The claimant made a number of subsequent applications by e-mail dated 13 July 2026 for an award of expenses; and on 15 July 2026 for an order for disclosure and separately for a preparation time order. On 24 July 2026, he lodged further documents in response to the claimant’s orders of 17 July 2026. All of these applications and documents were referred to me, and this has delayed the issue of this judgment. Discussion and decision[35]It is for the claimant to establish that he was employed, and to show who he was employed by, and therefore who is the correct respondent.[36]This claim is currently pursued against only the first and second respondents named. The claimant confirmed during oral submissions that he does not pursue any claim against Yellow Media Digital Company Limited. Specifically, during the hearing, he said that he would “apply to strike them off because they are irrelevant”. As I understood it, this related to the earlier application to add them as a third respondent.[37]Accordingly consideration was given only whether the first or the second respondent was the correct employer.[38]I had explained to the claimant that, in regard to any specific breaches of employment rights, the claimant cannot have been employed simultaneously by two different employers. I understood the claimant to assert clearly during the course of the hearing on several occasions that his employer was the second respondent. The first respondent[39]I had initially understood from the ET1 and correspondence from the claimant, that the claimant was suggesting that the first respondent was his employer as an individual. However, taking account of his written and oral submissions at the hearing, and documents lodged in support of his argument, I then understood the claimant to state that she was included as a respondent because he argues she was the sole owner and director of the second respondent (and of the purported third respondent). In these documents and submissions, both written and oral, he asserted that she had a controlling interest, and made all decisions relating to the second respondent in particular. I did not understand him to make any submission to support her inclusion as an individual respondent and there was no pleadings to support that.[40]However in an application submitted after the oral hearing, the claimant now states that he does not withdraw his claim against either and that both respondents should be retained as respondents. That as I understand it, is pending him obtaining further documents through disclosure to establish the position.[41]I note that the claimant now asserts that he maintains his claim against Ms Wit-Biniak personally traded as Polish Yellow Pages. I noted that the claimant had initially designed the first respondent as Katarzyna Wit-Biniak [Polish Yellow Pages]. He how asserts that she was a sole-trader and that he was employed by her. I noted that the first respondent is registered in these proceedings only as Katarzyna Wit-Biniak because that was the name she confirmed as the first respondent.[42]I understand from the claimant’s submissions and the documentation lodged that Ms WitBiniak may have operated a business as a sole trader, which may have operated from 1 March 2009 until the incorporation of Polish Yellow Pages Limited on 8 April 2026 or until 16 October 2018, when I understand that the business was suspended from the Polish Register. While I noted that the first respondent denies it, even if the claimant was once employed by the first respondent as a sole trader, that business no longer exists, so he cannot still be employed by that business.[43]The “reconstructed” pay slips which the claimant has now produced show that no payments were made which is also indicative that the first respondent is no longer trading, even if she was at one point involved with that business.[44]I would add that the Employment Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to argue about any failures of the first respondent to properly register or operate any business in Scotland, or in regard to any correspondence between the claimant, the police, the crown office and/or the procurator fiscal related to alleged criminal offences.[45]In these circumstances the claim against the first respondent must be dismissed. The second respondent[46]The claimant lodged a certificate of incorporation for Yellow Pages Digital Company Ltd (sic), company number SC489218. He also lodged company registration documents relating to that company, showing initial shareholdings of the claimant and the first respondent.[47]He has submitted a number of documents which relate the company Yellow Media Digital Company Ltd: what he calls “accounting documents”; correspondence with HMRC; an invoice for accounting services; a payslip a payment schedule and a P60. All of these related to periods between 2015 and 2016.[48]It is noted that the company listed in the Companies Register named Yellow Media Digital Company Limited with company number SC489218 was previously named Yellow Pages Digital Company (between October 2014 and March 2015).[49]What is apparent is that the claimant was, at one point at least, employed by Yellow Media Digital Company Limited, based on the one pay slip and P60 from 2016. However, according to the Register of Companies the company with that company number was dissolved on 9 November 2018.[50]In any event, that company is apparently not the same as the company named as the second respondent which is Polish Yellow Pages Limited.[51]The Register of Companies includes three companies named Polish Yellow Pages Limited. One with company number 14226628, where the claimant is named as an officer but not the first respondent, but this company was dissolved on 19 December 2023; a second company number 15863308 in which the first respondent but not the claimant is named as an officer but that company was dissolved on 20 May 2025; and a third company SC532137 in which both the claimant and the first respondent are named as officers was dissolved on 28 September 2021.[52]The claimant now confirms in oral submissions that he was employed by Polish Yellow Pages Limited. As I understand it, it is this third company SC532137 which the claimant states employed him. He has lodged documents which confirm that this company was incorporated on 8 April 2016 and dissolved on 28 September 2021.[53]The claimant confirmed during the course of the hearing that he was aware that the company is dissolved. He advised that he is in correspondence with Companies House to have the company “re-established” (as translated).[54]The claimant has lodged a P60 relating to earnings from this company for the tax year ending 2020. He has lodged a number of DWP print outs showing “nil” earnings from this employer between 2022 and 2026, which as I understand it are self reports.[55]What is clear since it is admitted is that this company, the second respondent, dissolved on 28 September 2021. Since the claimant advised during the hearing that he had applied to get the company restored to the register of companies, I invited him to submit documentation which confirmed that he had made such an application.[56]The claimant subsequently lodged correspondence relating to communications with Companies House regarding the restoration of the company. It is apparent that his application to restore the company was made in September 2025 after these proceedings were lodged. Further, it is also apparent that no application to restore the company is currently before the courts. An application drafted by the claimant was returned by Edinburgh Sheriff Court.[57]The claimant asserts that “the first petition was not warranted because of the identified formal deficiencies. There was, however, no determination on the merits that restoration was legally unavailable…..pending completion of that process, the Claimant respectfully seeks preservation of the claim against the Second Respondent”.[58]The claimant cannot currently proceed against the second respondent because that company does not exist, having been dissolved. However the claimant advises that he intends to take further steps to lodge a petition for the second respondent to be restored to the register of companies.[59]In such circumstances, I have decided that the claim should be sisted (that is the proceedings will be suspended) for three months to allow the claimant time to lodge the necessary documentation and to report on progress after three months, that is by 6 November 2026.[60]Given that there is currently no valid respondent to the claim, consideration of all outstanding applications lodged by the claimant will be deferred pending further procedure.