Cases2403131/2023

Claimant v Interactive Technology Corporation Limited

17 March 2025Before Employment Judge G TobinManchesterin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalnot determined

Claim against first respondent remains outstanding. Tribunal noted concerns about strength of claim but did not make final determination at this preliminary hearing.

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

Multiple allegations of direct sex discrimination against first respondent remain outstanding. Tribunal expressed particular concerns about Issues 4.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 but did not strike out without hearing from claimant.

Equal Pay(sex)not determined

Equal pay claims (Issues 7.1 and 7.2) against first respondent remain outstanding. Tribunal highlighted concerns about these claims but made no final determination.

Victimisationnot determined

Victimisation claims against first respondent remain outstanding. Tribunal raised particular concerns about Issues 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 4.1.1 but made no final determination at this stage.

Whistleblowingnot determined

Claims for detriments for making protected disclosures against first respondent remain outstanding. Tribunal expressed concerns about Issues 3.1 D1 and D2 but made no final determination.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected whistleblowing disclosure against first respondent remains outstanding but not determined at this preliminary hearing.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

Claims for non-payment or underpayment of wages against first respondent remain outstanding but not determined at this preliminary hearing.

Direct Discriminationnot determined

Associative discrimination claim against first respondent remains outstanding but not determined at this preliminary hearing.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

All claims against ITC EOT Trustee Limited (second respondent) struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Claimant was not employed by second respondent, which was merely a vehicle for holding shares with no employees.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Claims against second respondent struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Second respondent had no employees and claimant could provide no rational basis for bringing claims against this entity.

Equal Pay(sex)struck out

Claims against second respondent struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success as second respondent was not the claimant's employer.

Victimisationstruck out

Claims against second respondent struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success as there was no employment relationship with this entity.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Claims against second respondent struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Second respondent was merely a shareholding vehicle with no employees.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Claims against second respondent struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success as claimant was not employed by this respondent.

Facts

Claimant brought multiple claims including unfair constructive dismissal, sex discrimination, equal pay, victimisation, whistleblowing and unlawful deduction of wages against two respondents. She was employed only by the first respondent. The second respondent was a trustee company holding shares in the first respondent with no employees. This was the third preliminary hearing. The claimant did not attend despite notice and previous judicial warnings about the viability of claims against the second respondent.

Decision

The tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence after attempts to contact her failed. All claims against the second respondent (ITC EOT Trustee Limited) were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success because it was not the claimant's employer and was merely a shareholding vehicle. Claims against the first respondent remain outstanding. The tribunal considered but declined to make deposit orders without hearing from the claimant, though expressed significant concerns about the strength of multiple claims.

Practical note

Claimants must ensure they name the correct legal entity as respondent - claims against entities with no employment relationship will be struck out, and non-attendance at preliminary hearings risks adverse case management decisions.

Legal authorities cited

Case details

Case number
2403131/2023
Decision date
17 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No