u/Daisydust123

Looking for some urgent advice after my Employment Tribunal hearing today as I’m honestly feeling like walking away… (EAST LONDON TRIBUNAL)

My claim was originally issued in December 2024 against a company. Before my claim had even been processed, I submitted an application on January 2025 to add the director personally as a second respondent because I was concerned the company may dissolve (he dissolves companies all the time).

We were supposed to have a Case Management Hearing to decide upon this amendment in August 2025, but the Tribunal cancelled on the day. Then again in February 2026, but again they cancelled on the day, so it was rescheduled to May 2026.

The company was struck off and dissolved in January 2026 (shock).

At the Preliminary Hearing, the Judge immediately said he had only just noticed the company is dissolved and said that his view is that because the named respondent on the ET1 no longer exists, the claim may have “no reasonable prospects of success” and basically implied he thought it should be struck out, but because it was a private hearing it wouldn’t be decided now.

So he has now listed a separate 3 hour public hearing in October to decide whether the whole claim should be struck out.

The part I’m struggling with is that the Judge also stated that if the claim is struck out, my amendment application to add the director will not even be considered, despite the fact it was submitted BEFORE the company dissolved and even before my ET1 had even been processed.

He has made it clear that the order it will go in October is making the decision on whether the case is struck out BEFORE any amendments are even considered, considering there are currently no respondents.

I left court feeling really confused because I thought the whole point of the amendment application was to deal with exactly this situation. And if he was added as a respondent then there WOULD be a respondent. EVERY single part of my discrimination case is based on the director entirely.

The Judge also seemed confused as to why I didn’t apply to restore the dissolved company, but my solicitor had advised against restoring the company because they felt it would be costly and a waste of time, and instead was adamant we would be able to add him as a respondent anyway. I am now wondering whether that was the wrong decision and whether I should urgently apply to restore the company before the October hearing.

I am so upset because if my amendment application had been looked at when I originally raised it, I wouldn’t be in this mess. And now I’m having to wait until October 2026, almost 2 years after my application, for a hearing that should have happened a long time ago. And I feel like I’ve been set up to fail for it anyway so feels like a waste of
time.

How can an employer get away with keep dissolving companies to get out of employment tribunals? I am not the first!

I also feel like the barrister I hired to help me at this hearing didn’t say anything at all?! He just sat back and allowed the judge to basically throw my case out.

Would really appreciate any advice or experiences because I honestly feel completely lost after today.

I’ve attached the instructions from the Judge.

I’d really appreciate some thoughts on recent events in my Employment Tribunal case.

I have a Case Management Preliminary Hearing listed for May 2026 (after it was cancelled on the day twice by the Tribunal)

At this hearing the Tribunal will be deciding my application to amend the claim to add the director personally as a Respondent. This is really important as the company has since been dissolved (but he continues operating under another Ltd shock)

Originally the Respondent was represented by a different HR type company. They were involved through the earlier stages, including preparing the bundle for the previous hearing and agreeing a Draft List of Issues with me in line with the Tribunal’s Order who said for us to agree upon a draft list of issues. Since the company disolving Citation have come off record and a new firm (Peninsula) has now taken over representation.

Since stepping in, Peninsula have:

• Written to the Tribunal stating the company has been dissolved and asking for my claim to be struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success

• Submitted a completely new bundle to both myself and the Tribunal which I have not agreed to

• Included a new “Respondent’s List of Issues”, removing the previously agreed Draft List of Issues entirely

The new list of issues significantly rewords everything in the Respondent’s favour and removes a number of my key issues.

I have responded to the Tribunal regarding their strike out request, making it clear that my application to add the director was made well before the company was dissolved and is already listed to be determined at the hearing.

I have also written to the Tribunal to confirm that I have not agreed the new bundle or the revised List of Issues.

Has anyone experienced anything similar where a new representative comes in and effectively tries to reset things like this?

Can they just disregard an agreed Draft List of Issues and replace it with their own version?

Would really appreciate any thoughts or similar experiences