Case 1305116/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MR EDGARS LAUGMANIS v Winner Recruitment (Birmingham) Ltd and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305116/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
MR EDGARS LAUGMANIS
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Edgars Laugmanis, brought an unfair dismissal claim against Winner Recruitment Limited, Xentryst Limited and Evri Limited. Sitting by CVP in Birmingham on 4 September 2025, Employment Judge N. Clarke considered the employment status point first. The tribunal found that Mr Laugmanis was not employed by the First or Third Respondent within the meaning of section 236 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that Mr Laugmanis was employed by the Second Respondent, but that he had insufficient continuity of service to maintain the unfair dismissal claim against it. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claims in full. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not employed by the First or Third Respondent within the meaning of section 236 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found he was employed by the Second Respondent, but had insufficient continuity of service to maintain the unfair dismissal claim against it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 236 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- continuity of service
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.