Ince Gordon Dadds LLP & Ors v J Tunstall & Ors [2019] UKEAT 0141_19_1906 (19 June 2019)

Ince Gordon Dadds LLP & Ors v J Tunstall & Ors [2019] UKEAT 0141_19_1906 (19 June 2019)

Paragraph 43(6) Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 does not require the ET to continue the stay in relation to Third to Eighth Respondents; claims against them are stand-alone and not contingent on claims against administrated entities; ET acted within its case management discretion and properly considered prejudice, disclosure, and privilege issues.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0141_19_1906
Parties
Claimant: Mrs J Tunstall; First Respondent: Ince & Co LLP; Second Respondent: Ince & Co Services LLP; Third Respondent: Mr C Dwyer; Fourth Respondent: Mr M Volikas; Fifth Respondent: Mr Biggs; Sixth Respondent: Mr Hodgson; Seventh Respondent: Mr J O'Keeffe; Eighth Respondent: Gordon Dadds LLP (now Ince Gordon Dadds LLP)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From ET Preliminary Hearing Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Stay of Proceedings, Vicarious Liability, Res Judicata, Disclosure and Privilege, TUPE Transfers, Equality Act Discrimination
Employment Law Insolvency Law Statutory Stay of Proceedings Vicarious Liability Res Judicata Disclosure and Privilege TUPE Transfers Equality Act Discrimination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs J Tunstall

Claimant

Ince & Co LLP

First Respondent

Ince & Co Services LLP

Second Respondent

Mr C Dwyer

Third Respondent

Mr M Volikas

Fourth Respondent

Mr Biggs

Fifth Respondent

Mr Hodgson

Sixth Respondent

Mr J O'Keeffe

Seventh Respondent

Gordon Dadds LLP (now Ince Gordon Dadds LLP)

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From ET Preliminary Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 43(6) Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 requires a stay of proceedings against non-administrated respondents
  2. 2 Whether ET erred in lifting stay for Third to Eighth Respondents
  3. 3 Implications of res judicata and issue estoppel for stayed respondents

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 43(6) Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 does not require the ET to continue the stay in relation to Third to Eighth Respondents; claims against them are stand-alone and not contingent on claims against administrated entities; ET acted within its case management discretion and properly considered prejudice, disclosure, and privilege issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings may continue against Third to Eighth Respondents
  • Stay remains in place for First and Second Respondents unless administrators consent or court grants permission