Claimant v Winner Recruitment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the Claimant was not employed by the First or Third Respondent within the meaning of section 236 ERA 1996. While the Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent, he had insufficient continuity of service to maintain an unfair dismissal claim, which requires two years' qualifying service.
Facts
The Claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim against three respondents. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal had to determine who, if anyone, employed the Claimant and whether he had sufficient service. The Second Respondent did not appear at the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found that the First and Third Respondents were not the Claimant's employer within the meaning of ERA 1996. Although the Second Respondent was his employer, the Claimant lacked the two years' continuous employment required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Practical note
Claimants must establish both that they were employees of the correct legal entity and that they have the requisite qualifying service before an unfair dismissal claim can proceed to a full hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1305116/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No