Cases3313761/2023

Claimant v Beauty Educators Limited

23 April 2025Before Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KCWatfordremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

Claim stayed for six months to allow claimant to apply to restore the dissolved respondent company to the Companies House register. Claim cannot proceed against a dissolved company.

Breach of Contractnot determined

Claim related to provision of mobile telephone stayed for six months to allow claimant to apply to restore the dissolved respondent company to the Companies House register.

Facts

Ms Bean was employed by Beauty Educators Limited until 11 July 2023. She claimed unpaid wages for June and July 2023, alleging wages were unpaid or sums paid via PayPal were recouped, and that she was not provided with a promised mobile phone leading to personal expenses. Two additional claimants (Ganesh and Parkins) were named on a multiple claim form but never engaged with the tribunal. The respondent company was dissolved on 28 January 2025, and neither party appeared at the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claims of the second and third claimants (Ganesh and Parkins) for non-pursuit as they had no contact with the tribunal whatsoever. The first claimant's (Bean's) claim was stayed for six months to allow her to apply to the High Court to restore the dissolved respondent company to the Companies House register, as claims cannot proceed against dissolved companies.

Practical note

When a respondent company is dissolved during tribunal proceedings, the claimant must apply to the High Court to restore the company to the register before the employment tribunal claim can proceed.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.23Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
3313761/2023
Decision date
23 April 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No