Case 1802150/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Stokes v Job Lot Trading Company Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802150/2021
- Decision date
- 6 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E Stokes
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 15 November 2021 before Employment Judge Knowles, the tribunal dealt with case numbers 1802150/2021 and 1802701/2021. It dismissed the claims under 1802701/2021 against both respondents.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal, unlawful detriment, or notice pay claims against Mr Irons because he was not the claimant's employer. It also said that the claim under 1802701/2021 was a duplicate of the claim under 1802150/2021 so far as it was brought against Job Lot Trading Company Limited.
The judgment left unaffected the claimant's unfair dismissal and breach of contract (notice pay) claims under case 1802150/2021 against Job Lot Trading Company Limited only. Those claims were stated to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim in case 1802701/2021. It said it had no jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal against the second respondent because he was not the claimant's employer, and the duplicate claim against the first respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This covers the notice pay claim mentioned in the judgment. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear notice pay against the second respondent because he was not the claimant's employer, and the duplicate claim against the first respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to an unlawful detriment claim 'to the extent one is raised'. It said the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that claim against the second respondent and treated the duplicate claim against the first respondent as dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.