Thanks, Steampowered. What's the likelihood of his placing his company back on the register, bearing in mind I might be awarded costs if he doesn't? Also, if he doesn't go back on the register within three months, although that means that this appeal is redundant, can he make a fresh appeal if he later decides to restore his company? I ask this because I plan to take him down the Civil route (once these three months are up), and am wondering if this would force him into restoring his company.

UPDATE ** NEWS ** LATEST Response from the London EAT. They open by stating when the court case had been scheduled for (19th June) and go on to say that I provided evidence that the other side had been struck off, and that they had put this to the other side. This is the rest. All opinions welcome. It appears that the directors of the company made an application for dissolution of the company whilst there was an outstanding judgment for money against the company and it may well be that the company did not notify the respondent of the application for dissolution. It is possible that the dissolution was obtained improperly. That is not for this court to decide. However, since the dissolution of the company, a director, Mr XXXX, has continued to act in the company’s name, as if the company is still extant; but it does not exist and therefore no one is entitled to conduct litigation on its behalf. Any residual property or rights are vested in the Crown. Mr XXXX has been asked for his comments and acknowledges the dissolution of the company on the 13th November 2012 but replies that he does “not know whether this then automatically makes the company ineligible to progress with the appeal”. He ignores the point that the company no longer exists. He may continue with his state of ignorance and non-enquiry no longer. It is for him to show that the company is a legal entity entitled to conduct this litigation and that he is entitled to act on the company’s behalf. It is not open to the company or its directors to pick which aspects of the law should apply to its status, to seek the protection of dissolution but to maintain the privilege of acting in its company persona. It is for Mr XXXX (or anyone else) to show that the company has the power to continue this litigation. It may well be that to do so the company would have to be restored to the register of companies and it is for the appellant to show that this has happened. I refer the appellant to the Companies Acts of 1985 and 2006. In any event the failure of the appellant to do so would not prevent any application by the respondent in this respect. It is open to the respondent to take any further steps under the relevant legislation. I therefore intend to stay this matter for 3 months remove the appeal from the list and vacate the hearing of 19th June 2014 Issue an Unless order pursuant to Rule 26 that unless proof is provided that the appellant company is entitled to litigate or to nominate someone to litigate on its behalf in its name within 3 months from the date of the order that this appeal be dismissed The issue of costs against Mr Montgomery is adjourned until the above matters are decided [bACK TO ME: Can someone expand on the "Unless Order"? Thank you.]

becky2585: Thank you for contributing. smokejumper: No apologies needed, quite the opposite. Your input was actually spot on because (a) it concluded with our getting legal knowledge that wouldn't have happened had you not posted. And (b) your facts were correct in that, as becky2585 said, the principles remain the same. So thanks, and don't feel you shouldn't post, as all posts ultimately lead to good information.

Thanks, Smokejumper.

Update. Just had this email from the London EAT (a copy of their email to the other side): "Dear Sir, I refer to the above matter and the Respondent's Answer in which he states that the Appellant has no standing in these proceedings. Please provide your comments in relation to that matter within 14 days of the date of this email. " Is this standard procedure, that they email your response to the Appellant and then ask for their comments? Or are they asking for their comments only because of the dissolved aspect?

Perfect description, and I'm sure there's a few twists and turns yet to come.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I've now sent the Response, via email, and London EAT's rep has confirmed they have it in time and that all is in order. steampowered: that "until" was a good spot, cheers. I can see how its use might have had them thinking, "Sounds like the company is going to go back on the register imminently, so we might as well do the appeal anyway". To take away any confusion I just chopped the line down to "The Appellant, therefore, has no standing in these proceedings". Hope that wasn't wrong of me

He came across fairly cagey when I put it to him and said it was possible to sue him but didn't expand on it and changed subjects very quickly. Whether this was down to his agreeing with steampowered (who didn't think suing the solicitor viable) or because he gets a lot of work from my ex-solicitor, who knows. I'm with you, though, the solicitor should take some responsibility for this mess. I mean, the botch up with the strike off aside, the reason I went through the last appeal and would have continued through this appeal too was because he passed the information on and never once said I didn't need to bother. Indeed, it was he who put the last bundle together.

I have received this from the barrister who originally dealt with my case. I would be grateful for feedback before I send my Response to the EAT... "...having been dissolved the company is not in a position to conduct litigation. Once dissolved a company is deemed not to exist. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ought to be informed of this, at which point the Appellant...will be prevented from continuing with the appeal.... In the meantime, however, the Appellant should not be conducting litigation having been dissolved. Mr X will be aware of this as the Secretary of the company and the company was dissolved at the time of his appeal. When notifying the EAT of this fact, I would also recommend threatening to seek wasted costs from Mr x personally. I would therefore recommend writing to the EAT completing the form titled “respondent’s answer”, attaching the printouts above [there are two; they are Companies House documents that show X Ltd as being dissolved] and filling in paragraph 3 in the following terms: “It has recently come to the Claimant’s attention that the Appellant, x Limited, was dissolved on 13th November 2012. The Appellant, therefore, has no standing in these proceedings until the company is restored to the register. Furthermore, the appellant had no standing at the time of making the application to appeal and as the Secretary of the company the Appellant’s representative, Mr x, ought to have been aware that he was unable to conduct litigation having after voluntarily striking the company off the register. In fact, at the time of dissolution the company was still engaged in the conduct of litigation and should not have applied for voluntary strike off. Whomever made such an application is likely to have committed an offence under s.1004 of the Companies Act 2006. In light of the wasted costs that have followed, therefore, the Claimant seeks an order for wasted costs against the Appellant’s representative, Mr x, in accordance with Rule 34C on the basis that Mr x’s conduct was improper, unreasonable and/or it is reasonable to expect him to pay for the Claimant’s wasted costs as a result. A schedule will be prepared in due course.” If such an application is successful, under rule 34D a litigant in person is entitled to the following costs: (a) costs for the same categories of work and disbursements which would have been allowed if he had been represented by a legal representative; (b) payments made by him for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; © the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim; (d) other expenses incurred by him in relation to the proceedings. These costs must not exceed two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if you had been represented by a legal representative. The amount that you will be allowed in respect of any item of work differs according to whether or not you can prove financial loss (i.e. loss of earnings). If you can prove financial loss, the amount will be that which you can prove he had lost for the time reasonably spent doing the work. If you cannot prove financial loss, the amount will be that which the EAT considers reasonably spent doing the work at an hourly rate of £32 (or £33 if it’s after April 2014). A litigant in person who is awarded costs will not be entitled to a witness allowance as well. I would recommend preparing a written Schedule setting out all the time spent by you in preparation of this case and appeal since the date of dissolution of the company and any costs, travel, postage etc. This is not a blank cheque but should be a reasonable estimate and broken down for each separate item of work. This should then be served on Mr x and the tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing."

Will keep all informed, of course. And opinions always welcome.

BREAKING NEWS No need to write the Response, apparently. After much effort and many days I've finally managed to have a lengthy discussion with the barrister who originally won me the case back in 2012. He's convinced that their Appeal has no grounds to be in force because, according to him, their being dissolved disqualifies them from doing so. He says that he will write me a letter to instruct the relevant people that any further efforts to include me in such a legal process and I will apply for charges against them. He says that all results that stood before their being disqualified still stand, which is great because my winning case came before their being struck off. Well chuffed. I realise this doesn't mean I can necessarily get much, if anything, out of them cash-wise, but at least it's a starter for ten!

Double checked. All names are made up. I've now added a caption to highlight this.

Breaking news, see further post

I mean, rather than me trying to type bits and pieces here, if I somehow manage to post the entire transcript of the Notice of Appeal onto an alternative website (so that Forum members had access to it) would that be okay? Or am I not allowed to post website addresses on here?

Is it possible for me to place this case online with all the names changed and direct the forum to where it is online? That would be so much easier.

I keep trying to ring Citizen's Advice, with no luck, as a friend said I'm possibly entitled to a free barrister. I also tried a chambers in Manchester (I'd have to take out a loan for one of those though) but they couldn't even be bothered to respond

Thanks fellas. Steampowered, are you saying that if I lose this round it goes back to a Tribunal? Also, I tried to contact you directly to clarify some of the rules of the forum but you've exceeded your storage space. Beyond that, I was wondering if it was possible to hire someone on here to help with this? That way I can email the notice of appeal directly, because my answering each of the Appellant's many points, even briefly, it too tricky for me because I don't know the law enough to do that.

Here is one of the five Reasons and my answer. Please feel free to tell me what to cut or add, Forum. And NOTE that all names have been altered and any resemblance to real names is accidental. (1) the finding that ‘Hair Bear’ had signed a contract at p54 of the ET bundle in 2000 (judgement para 20); this was not alleged in his own witness statement (para 8) and was inconsistent with the fact that INT Ltd was not incorporated till 2007/8. Judgement paragraph 20 “The original contract (page 54) dated from February 2000 and I accepted the claimant’s evidence that he had signed it although the copy in the bundle was not signed. The employer was a company called INT Limited” My witness statement paragraph 8 “I was provided with a Contract of Employment as evidenced at pages 54 to 66 of the Tribunal Bundle. Page 54 at paragraph 2.1 shows that my employment with National Security commenced on 18 February 2000” My Response Regarding the use of “INT Limited”: Firstly, Judge F accepted the door firm’s verbal assurance that the contract was identical save the name change. Secondly, on page 16 of the bundle the door firm wrote “During the period that the Claimant was employed...there was a series of business transfers that resulted in NOR Ltd being taken over by GEN Ltd to NATI Ltd, INT Ltd and finally CAS Ltd trading as National Security”. That the door firm underwent a succession of name changes was also referenced by Judge F, such as paragraph 23 “Over the years it is clear that the company behind the trading name National Security changed over time”. In court we had mostly used “CAS Ltd” whenever talking about the door firm, sometimes “INT Ltd” (away from court I had always referred to them as “National”, since they’d traded as National Security for years). Rarely, if ever, did we ever use the door firm’s first-ever name, NOR Ltd. I believe that, because of this array of names, when writing “INT Limited” Judge F was simply trying to indicate the company’s original name, got mixed up, and should actually have written “NOR Ltd”. But under no circumstances should this detract from the fact that he was clearly talking about one and the same door company. As for why Judge F accepted that I had signed a contract despite my not alleging it in my own witness statement: I believe this was for two reasons. Firstly, he believed me when I told him I had signed one when he asked me. Secondly, the door company’s representative orally confirmed this, despite the fact that at the time of questioning it would not have been to the door company’s benefit to divulge such information (as this was prior to their being eradicated from the procedure). Additionally, if you read page 15 of the bundle, the door firm’s paragraph 6 says “The claimant was employed under the terms of a Contract of Employment.” I contend that, by definition, to be employed under the terms of a Contract of Employment means you that you had to have signed it! Again, though, there would be no advantage to the door firm divulging such information, both written and orally, and so I contend that any reasonable person would therefore conclude that the only grounds for its being divulged was because it was factual. Let me also say that while in court I even rehashed my signing the contract, as it was, and still is, crystal clear to me. And for very good reason. At the time I was desperate for a door job, not just some work. Where I lived you could pick up bits and pieces but there was nothing beyond doing a Friday and Saturday shift, and I very much wanted a job. Searching on the Internet, I came across the door firm I eventually ended up with, a big company with many employees who covered a lot of Manchester. I telephoned them during the week before I started. The guy I talked to was called Dan. He told me to come see them the following day at 2:30pm. Having got lost en route, I was uncharacteristically late, so was annoyed with myself thinking I’d blown it. When eventually I got there Dan introduced himself and, in time, I was interviewed by a guy called Lee. It seemed to go well. Satisfied with the interview, Lee then gave me a tie and, the best bit, also handed me a contract and asked me to read their terms and conditions and then sign it. YES, a proper job!!! I seriously couldn’t have been more chuffed, but then when I was driving away I started thinking “Oh no, what have I done?” because I was stepping out of my comfort zone in many ways. For instance, I had heard many reports about Manchester gangs and guns and was worried about mywelfare.

Got it all now (two days ago). I've got until the 25th and have been working hard. Will post my answers soon for the forum's approval and edit.

My judge did come up with some case laws and the Appellant had a right go at tearing to pieces a couple of them, but from the EAT's Judge's Reasons, it doesn't read as though he's querying the case laws (thankfully). I've nearly completed a couple of his five Reasons and will post asap.

Thanks for coming back, Pusillanimous. An observation: I actually think that the law should be that the original judge has to account for whatever discrepancies arise from an EAT. It seems daft that someone other than the person who did the summation should attempt to clarify and second guess what that person was trying to say. I mean, supposing I cock up because my second guessing is all wrong and the decision gets reversed. If it was a case of, had the original judge responded instead, it might not have been reversed, it would look much better for the legal system because the fewer the decisions getting overturned the better. On that note, now that I'm thinking about it: if I should lose in this next round am I also afforded the same luxury as the opposition - a chance to put that judge's decision to an EAT?

Okay, brilliant, thanks. But just to clarify: I don't need to start worrying about bundles just yet? Also, will the judge who allowed their appeal be the same judge who also goes over my response? Please also answer the following. Part of the letter I've been sent says I have to send my response to e.a.t. AND serve on the appellant an Answer. Does this mean I have to send an identical copy of my response to the other side (if so, are they allowed to rebuttal it?), or does it mean that I just have to tell them I am responding?

I think you're right, Smokejumper. I'm pretty sure the other side are concerned I might go after them via the civil route. I also agree about the lawyer. I know Steampowered said I didn't really have a case against him but after he cocked up with their being struck off I wish it was viable. Thanks to everyone who has continued to watch my plight. It's still very much appreciated, and feel free to keep giving advice.

I'm probably getting my legal terms mixed up. The heading of the papers is "Employment Appeal Tribunal" (from London). It further says "I enclose a sealed copy of the above Notice of Appeal and Order...You are a Respondant to the appeal and if you wish to oppose it you should complete a copy of the enclosed Form 3...Your answer will then be served on the Appellant...This matter will shortly be referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal List Office for listing of the hearing" Then there is a "Respondent's Answer" form. After that there is a heading "Employment Appeal Tribunal" (dated 11 Feb). It reads, "Upon hearing XXX...it is ordered that...the Appellant's application pursuant to Rule 3(10) is allowed". Then there's a lot of legal speak followed by: "Appeal allowed to proceed to FH...REASONS" [i've given the judges reasons already], then there is the NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DECISION OF EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL, and a few pages of the other side giving their reasons why they thought the original judge's decision was wrong.