Claimant v A Gomez Limited (in administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
Claims struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that employee representatives were properly elected in accordance with section 188A TULRCA, meaning under Gillett v Bridge 86 Ltd only those representatives, not individual employees, could bring claims under section 189(1)(b) TULRCA. The claimants had falsely asserted no election occurred but later conceded this was untrue. Amendment application to change basis of claims was refused due to late timing, lack of acceptable explanation, and fundamental dishonesty in original pleadings.
Facts
314 former employees of A Gomez Limited (a fresh produce supplier that entered administration on 11 December 2023) brought claims alleging failure to consult under s.189 TULRCA, asserting no opportunity was given to elect employee representatives. In fact, the employer had conducted an election process in November 2023, electing 14 representatives who attended consultation meetings before the company's collapse. At least 14 claimants who signed witness statements denying any election had occurred were themselves the elected representatives. The claimants maintained this false position for nearly a year despite multiple warnings, only applying to amend their claims the day before a strike-out hearing.
Decision
The tribunal refused the amendment application as it was fundamentally dishonest, tactically timed, and lacked acceptable explanation. The tribunal struck out all 314 claims under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that under Gillett v Bridge 86 Ltd, where employee representatives have been properly elected, only those representatives (not individual employees) can bring claims for inadequate consultation under s.189(1)(b) TULRCA. The tribunal found the claimants had knowingly advanced claims based on false assertions.
Practical note
Where employee representatives have been properly elected under s.188A TULRCA, individual employees have no standing to bring collective consultation claims under s.189 TULRCA, and tribunals will not permit tactical late amendments to circumvent this jurisdictional defect, particularly where original claims were founded on demonstrably false assertions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302258/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister