Claimant v SMBC Nikko Capital Markets Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant was not an employee of SMBC or JRIE, only of Dasa. No dismissal occurred as termination of client assignment did not terminate employment contract with Dasa under clause 13.2. Claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal found no contract of employment between claimant and SMBC or JRIE. No dismissal by Dasa occurred. Wrongful dismissal requires employment contract and termination of it. Neither element satisfied.
Claims against SMBC and JRIE struck out as claimant accepted only Dasa was responsible for pay. Claim against Dasa remains live but tribunal directed further particularisation before determining merits.
Claims against SMBC and JRIE struck out as claimant accepted only Dasa was responsible for pay. Claim against Dasa remains live but tribunal directed further particularisation before determining merits.
Facts
Claimant was an IT professional engaged by SMBC from April 2021 via a triangular arrangement: JRI Europe contracted Harrington Starr recruitment agency who sourced claimant. Claimant chose to be employed by Dasa umbrella company from a list provided. Written contract stated assignment termination would not end employment. After complaint about claimant's behaviour, JRIE terminated the assignment on 29 July 2024. Claimant brought claims against all parties in the chain.
Decision
Tribunal struck out unfair and wrongful dismissal claims against all respondents. Claimant was employee of Dasa only, not SMBC or JRIE. No implied contract necessary or justified. No dismissal occurred as assignment termination did not end employment contract with Dasa. Unpaid wages and holiday pay claims against Dasa remain live pending further particularisation.
Practical note
In triangular agency/umbrella arrangements, tribunals will not imply a contract of employment with the end-user unless necessary to reflect business reality; integration and passage of time alone are insufficient and express contractual arrangements will generally prevail.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2224001/2024
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- IT services professional
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep