Belhassen v Dobhan Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant formerly worked as a kitchen assistant at a commercial entity known as Yaks Restaurant. The Appellant, a foreign national residing in the jurisdiction, initiated proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal on 20 June 2019, naming as sole respondent an individual identified as the restaurant manager. The claims included unfair dismissal, failure to provide a contract or pay slip, and payment below the national minimum wage.

The formal response clarified that the manager was a fellow employee of Company A, a limited company which had been dissolved on 11 June 2019. The Appellant's employment period was disputed, and it was asserted that the Appellant left voluntarily.

Over the course of more than two years, the Tribunal conducted multiple case management hearings. The Appellant sought to join another individual trading as the restaurant, which was consented to by the original respondent's solicitor. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims against the named individuals and proceeded solely against Company A, despite its dissolution.

The Tribunal made inconsistent orders regarding the parties, including joining Company A as a notice party, despite it having ceased to exist as a legal entity. The Appellant's newly instructed solicitors applied to review and set aside the earlier order on the basis of the Appellant's lack of legal representation and misunderstanding of the legal distinctions involved.

The Tribunal did not engage substantively with this application, instead mischaracterizing it and failing to acknowledge Company A's dissolution. The Appellant was criticized for lack of earlier legal representation without evidential basis. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's dismissal of the Appellant’s applications to extend time and to reconsider the earlier order that dismissed two respondents and substituted Company A.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing proceedings to continue against a dissolved company which was not a legal entity at the relevant times.
2. Whether the Tribunal properly considered the Appellant’s application to set aside the earlier order dismissing named respondents and substituting the dissolved company.
3. Whether the Tribunal's orders were sustainable in law given the procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the record of proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that he was unfairly dismissed and had not been provided with proper contractual documentation or pay slips.
• The Appellant’s solicitors argued that the Appellant was unrepresented at earlier hearings, lacked legal knowledge, and did not understand the distinction between individuals and limited companies under company law.
• They applied to set aside the Tribunal’s order dismissing the originally named respondents and substituting the dissolved company, asserting this was in the interests of justice.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent asserted that Company A had been dissolved and was no longer a valid legal entity capable of participating in proceedings.
• It was maintained that the Appellant was employed by the restaurant entity and paid cash in hand, but no transfer of undertakings had occurred with new owners.
• The Respondent’s representatives consented to the joinder of the restaurant trader as a party at an early stage.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified that Company A ceased to exist as a legal entity on 11 June 2019, rendering it incapable of being a party to proceedings thereafter. Consequently, the Appellant could not validly commence proceedings against Company A, nor could the Tribunal validly order its joinder. The impugned orders were thus unsustainable in law.

The Court further noted procedural and substantive deficiencies in the Tribunal’s handling of the case, including:

• The absence of evidential foundation for the alleged concession by the Appellant at a case management hearing.
• The unreasonable expectation that the self-represented foreign national Appellant understood complex legal distinctions regarding employer identity and company law.
• The unwarranted criticism of the Appellant for lack of legal representation.
• Inconsistencies and incongruities in the Tribunal’s records and orders, notably the contradictory treatment of parties and the improper joinder of a dissolved company as a notice party.
• The Tribunal's failure to properly engage with the Appellant’s application to set aside the earlier order under the correct procedural rule.

On these grounds, the Court exercised its statutory powers to reverse the impugned orders, restoring the proceedings to continue against the originally named individual respondents only.

Holding and Implications

The Court REVERSED the orders of the Industrial Tribunal that dismissed the originally named respondents and substituted the dissolved company as a party.

As a result, the Appellant’s claim will proceed solely against the originally named individual respondents. No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily rectifies procedural errors and confirms the principle that proceedings cannot be maintained against a dissolved company.

The Court expressed hope that the merits hearing would proceed expeditiously given the prolonged duration of the proceedings.