Case 1306627/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Lanre Fagbe First v Allegis Group Limited Second Respondent: Santander UK plc Third Respondent: Mr. Amrick Singh Thandi PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306627/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Lanre Fagbe First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 1 and 2 February 2021 before Employment Judge Dean. The Tribunal decided jurisdiction issues only and did not make any merits findings on the underlying claims.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was neither a worker within section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, nor an employee of the first respondent within section 83 of the Equality Act 2010, nor a contract worker of the second respondent within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis it held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints against the first and second respondents and dismissed them.
The claimant confirmed that his complaints against the third respondent, described as unlawful discrimination because of the protective characteristic, were withdrawn and dismissed. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. The first respondent's application for a costs award against the claimant did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed at preliminary stage after the Tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction over complaints against the first and second respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The extracted text does not identify the underlying claim type(s) separately, but the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claimant's complaints against the first and second respondents after finding he was not an employee of the first respondent or a contract worker of the second respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant confirmed that his complaints against the third respondent of unlawful discrimination because of the protective characteristic were withdrawn and dismissed. The extracted text does not specify which protected characteristic was relied on. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 43K Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 83 Equality Act 2010
- section 41 Equality Act 2010
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.