Claimant v Eros International Limited (in administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second and third respondents for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Without the necessary employment relationship, the claims against these respondents could not proceed and were dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second and third respondents. Only an employee of the relevant respondent can bring a claim for constructive unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim against these respondents was therefore dismissed.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the first respondent (a UK subsidiary) as Chief Corporate and Strategy Officer from April 2014 to July 2022, working primarily on matters benefiting the third respondent (the listed parent company). He resigned and brought claims for unauthorised deductions and constructive dismissal against all three respondents. The first respondent subsequently entered administration. The preliminary hearing considered whether the second and third respondents were also the claimant's employers. The claimant's written contract was with the first respondent, but he performed substantial work for the third respondent, worked at the third respondent's premises, and reported to the third respondent's CEO.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second or third respondents for Employment Rights Act 1996 purposes. His written contract was with the first respondent and expressly provided for him to perform services for other group companies. It was not necessary to imply a contract with the other respondents. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed.
Practical note
Working for the benefit of a parent company and being presented externally as its representative does not create an employment relationship with that parent where there is an express contract with a subsidiary that provides for group-wide services.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302958/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Corporate and Strategy Officer
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No