Case 2207261/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person, accompanied by his mother Ms L Levenson For First v Bucket Group Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207261/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person, accompanied by his mother Ms L Levenson For First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this open preliminary hearing on 14 July 2022, the tribunal joined three linked cases and found that Bucket Group Ltd had employed the claimant from 22 May 2018 under a contract signed on 23 May 2018. It held that Bucket Group remained the claimant's employer throughout, that River Walk Group Ltd was only a shareholder in Bucket Group, and that Sucre London Ltd was a separate business owned and controlled by Addmind. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, redundancy pay and breach of contract could only proceed against Bucket Group Ltd and were struck out against respondents 2 to 7.
The age discrimination complaints were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. The disability discrimination complaints were struck out against all respondents. The tribunal said there was no reasonable prospect of finding that disability, or something arising from disability, was a reason for dismissal because Bucket Group had ceased trading and all employees were dismissed when the business stopped. It also rejected the Sucre-related complaints because the claimant had no evidence that others were offered work there, had not sent the email application route shown on the Instagram advert, and had only made an enquiry rather than a formal application.
The tribunal further held that the underpayment complaint was out of time because the last possible act relied on was in March 2020 and no reason was given for extending time on the just and equitable basis. It therefore struck that complaint out as well. The remaining employment and money claims were not finally determined at this hearing and were listed for a later one-day hearing against Bucket Group Ltd only.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claimant withdrew the age discrimination complaints at the hearing; the tribunal dismissed them on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination / discrimination arising from disability complaints against all respondents as having no reasonable prospects of success. It treated Bucket Group Ltd, Sucre London Ltd, Gregory Max Godik and Georgina Godik as the proper respondents to those complaints, but held that the dismissal complaint, the Sucre non-offer complaint, the non-response complaint and the underpayment complaint still failed, with the underpayment complaint also being out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held Bucket Group Ltd was the claimant's employer throughout and struck out the ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal complaint against respondents 2-7 because they were not the employer. The claim continued only against Bucket Group Ltd and was not determined on the merits at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The separate notice pay complaint was held to lie only against Bucket Group Ltd as employer; it was struck out against respondents 2-7 and continued against Bucket Group Ltd, but was not determined on the merits at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was held to lie only against Bucket Group Ltd as employer; it was struck out against respondents 2-7 and continued against Bucket Group Ltd, but was not determined on the merits at this hearing. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- r.37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Anyanwu v Southbank Student's Union
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3) and (4) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.