Claimant v NTT DATA UK LIMITED
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out following a preliminary hearing that determined the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claim dismissed after preliminary hearing found claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent, meaning the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The claimant's actual employer was found to be JSA Services Limited trading as Workwell.
Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found at preliminary hearing that the claimant was not an employee or worker of either respondent, but was employed by umbrella company Workwell.
Claim struck out following preliminary hearing determination that the claimant was neither an employee nor worker of either respondent. His contractual employer was found to be Workwell, not the respondents.
Facts
The claimant worked on an assignment with NTT Data via recruitment agency Expert Resource, believing he had a contract directly with them. In reality, he was employed by umbrella company Workwell (JSA Services Limited), which he had verbally accepted working with for payroll purposes. When his assignment ended, he brought claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages against NTT Data and Expert Resource. Both respondents sent costs warning letters explaining he should claim against Workwell. The claimant refused to accept Workwell was his employer and continued his claims. A two-day preliminary hearing found he was neither employee nor worker of either respondent, dismissing all claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Decision
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay costs of £4,000 to each respondent (£8,000 total) for unreasonable conduct. The claimant had ignored multiple warnings that his employer was Workwell, refused to reflect on clear evidence of his contractual arrangements with Workwell, failed to support third-party disclosure of relevant correspondence, and persisted in pursuing claims against the wrong entities. Despite being a litigant in person with limited means, the tribunal found costs appropriate given his savings and current employment.
Practical note
A claimant who ignores clear costs warnings explaining the correct legal position regarding employment status in umbrella company arrangements, and persists in pursuing the wrong respondents without reflection on the evidence, may face significant costs orders even as a litigant in person.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2210425/2023
- Decision date
- 14 July 2025
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Contractor/Consultant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No