Claimant v Maybank Securities (London) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not employed by the respondent but by MBB. The claim can only be brought against the employer. Additionally, claimant could not identify any contractual obligation for additional remuneration beyond promises not crystallised until February 2024 pay review.
Claim for failure to provide Statement of terms and conditions can only apply to employers. Tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent but of MBB, so struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
While potentially valid claim type, it could not be brought against the respondent as they were not the employer. Additionally, claimant failed to identify any female comparators who were paid more for doing like work.
The tribunal found this claim can be brought against the respondent even if claimant was not employed by them. Discrimination cases are fact sensitive and not generally struck out on merits. The strike out application for this claim failed and it proceeds to full hearing.
Claim can only be brought against the employer. Tribunal found the respondent was not the claimant's employer - he remained employed by MBB throughout. Therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Sexual harassment claim can be brought against the respondent even if claimant was not employed by them. The strike out application failed and this claim will proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Victimisation claim can be brought against the respondent regardless of employment status. The strike out application failed and this claim will proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Claim was made against the wrong respondent as the claimant was employed by MBB not the respondent. Additionally, the claim was made out of time.
Claim under Modern Slavery Act 2015 struck out as not within the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal, regardless of employment status.
Claim under Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing.
Facts
The claimant was employed by MBB London since 2013 as Head of Compliance. In 2023, he was asked to take on additional role as Officer-in-Charge, Compliance for the respondent, a separate group company. He expected additional pay but there was no express agreement about salary or separate contract. He received a 14% salary increase in February 2024 and further increase in April 2024 when FCA approvals came through, then resigned from the respondent role while continuing his MBB employment.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent but remained employed by MBB throughout. Most claims were struck out as they required an employment relationship with the respondent. However, the race discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation claims survived the strike out application as they can be brought against non-employers and are fact-sensitive.
Practical note
Discrimination claims can proceed against entities that are not the claimant's employer, while statutory employment rights claims such as unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages require a finding of employment status with the specific respondent.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2224559/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Compliance SMF16 and SMF 17 roles
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No