Thajudeen v Deeside (Guernsey) Ltd & Anor (Contract of Employment : Whether established) [2013] UKEAT 0049_12_1704 (17 April 2013)

Thajudeen v Deeside (Guernsey) Ltd & Anor (Contract of Employment : Whether established) [2013] UKEAT 0049_12_1704 (17 April 2013)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to address and determine the new argument regarding the extended definition of 'employer' under s.43K ERA in the context of the Claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim against the Second Respondent. The case is remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to reconsider the application for review and to determine what claims are properly before it.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0049_12_1704
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted to Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Jurisdictional Points, Agency Relationships, Unfair Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures
Employment Law Contract of Employment Jurisdictional Points Agency Relationships Unfair Dismissal Whistleblowing Protected Disclosures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to address a new argument regarding the extended definition of 'employer' under s.43K(1)(a) and s.43K(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) in the context of whistleblowing claims against the Second Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant could be considered a worker vis-a-vis the Second Respondent for the purposes of Part IVA of ERA and thus entitled to pursue a detriment claim under s.47B ERA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to address and determine the new argument regarding the extended definition of 'employer' under s.43K ERA in the context of the Claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim against the Second Respondent. The case is remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to reconsider the application for review and to determine what claims are properly before it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted to Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The appeal is granted.
  • The case is remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to reconsider the application for review and determine what claims are before it.