In person, assisted by Miss E Morris and Miss C Kent For the v Miss H Farrow of the Respondent — 2021

Mrs Clare Drew began working for Parenta Training Ltd on 14 June 2016, then moved to Parenta Partners LLP after her probationary period, and returned to the respondent on 1 April 2020. She was dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 1 July 2020. The tribunal identified the central issue as whether the respondent and the LLP were associated employers so that her earlier service could count towards the two years needed for an unfair dismissal claim.

Applying sections 94(1), 108(1), 218(6) and 231 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and referring to Merton London Borough Council v Gardiner, Southwood Hostel Management Committee v Taylor and Pinkney v Sandpiper Drilling Ltd, the tribunal found that the LLP and the respondent were not associated employers. The tribunal noted that the respondent was a wholly owned subsidiary of MBH Corporation Plc, but the LLP was not a limited company and MBH did not control the LLP in the way required by section 231. As a result, the claimant's continuity of employment was not preserved across the move between the LLP and the respondent.

Because the claimant therefore lacked the two years' continuous employment required by section 108(1), the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. Separately, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had a valid claim for unlawful deductions from wages and, by consent, entered judgment for her in the agreed sum of £450.00.