Dixon v. Viollet & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0342_10_1609 (16 September 2010)

The order against Mr Dixon was set aside because he was not the employer; Santiago Management Ltd, as the company trading as T. HQ and the employer, is the correct Respondent and solely liable for the award.

Citation: [2010] UKEAT 0342_10_1609
Parties: Claimant: Miss B Viollet; First Respondent: Mr Frank Dixon; Second Respondent: Santiago Management Ltd (trading as T. HQ)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 16 September 2010
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed; order against Mr Dixon set aside; Respondent corrected to Santiago Management Ltd in liquidation.
Legal Topics: Unpaid Wages, Correct Respondent, Company Liability, Director Liability, Insolvency

Employment Law Unpaid Wages Correct Respondent Company Liability Director Liability Insolvency

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Miss B Viollet

Claimant

Mr Frank Dixon

First Respondent

Santiago Management Ltd (trading as T. HQ)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Dixon can be held personally liable for unpaid wages owed to the Claimant
2 Whether the correct Respondent is Mr Dixon or Santiago Management Ltd trading as T. HQ

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order against Mr Dixon set aside; Respondent corrected to Santiago Management Ltd in liquidation.

Orders

Order against Mr Dixon set aside
Respondent name corrected to Santiago Management Ltd