Claimant v Nanoavionics UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim against first respondent ongoing. Claim against third respondent struck out for having no reasonable prospect of establishing agency or worker relationship. Claim against second respondent to continue subject to deposit order due to limited evidence of agency. Claim against fourth respondent subject to deposit order due to difficulty establishing knowing assistance under s112 Equality Act.
Same as direct discrimination: claim against first respondent ongoing, claim against third respondent struck out, claims against second and fourth respondents subject to deposit orders due to little reasonable prospect of establishing liability through agency or aiding discrimination.
Same as direct discrimination: claim against first respondent ongoing, claim against third respondent struck out, claims against second and fourth respondents subject to deposit orders due to little reasonable prospect of establishing liability through agency or aiding discrimination.
Claimant alleges dismissal was discriminatory. Respondent alleges dismissal was for performance-related reasons. Claim to be determined at full hearing against first respondent.
Facts
Claimant employed by first respondent as Sales Director from January to May 2019, dismissed allegedly for performance. Claimant alleges discrimination/harassment and brought claims against first respondent employer, second respondent (Lithuanian parent company), third respondent (group company), and fourth respondent (individual chairman). Claimant alleged he was employed by or worked for multiple respondents, or that they acted as agents of his employer.
Decision
Tribunal struck out claims against third respondent for having no reasonable prospect of success in establishing employment, worker or agency relationship. Made deposit orders of £150 each against second and fourth respondents due to little reasonable prospect of establishing agency or knowing assistance in discrimination. Claims against first respondent (actual employer) to proceed.
Practical note
Claims against corporate group entities and individuals require clear evidence of agency relationship, employment or knowing assistance in discrimination; mere corporate connection or involvement in termination decisions is insufficient without fiduciary duties or direct participation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3321885/2019
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Sales Director
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No