Mian Imtiaz Mahmood v SMBC Nikko Capital Markets Ltd and 3 others — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 22 January 2025, the tribunal considered who the correct respondent was and whether the claims should be struck out. It found that the claimant was an employee of Dasa at all material times and was not an employee of SMBC or JRIE. The written arrangements were clear: the claimant chose Dasa from the umbrella companies offered, signed a contract of employment with Dasa, and the tribunal said it was not necessary to imply any further contract with SMBC or JRIE. Applying the authorities cited by the parties, the tribunal held that the evidence of control, integration, and the passage of time did not justify implying a contract with the end user.

On that basis, the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against SMBC and JRIE were struck out because the claimant was not their employee. The tribunal also struck out those claims against Dasa because the claimant conceded there had been no dismissal, and in any event the tribunal found that termination of the client assignment did not terminate the Dasa contract, there was no dismissal by words or conduct, and no fundamental breach was shown. The claims against Harrington Starr were dismissed by consent.

The pay claims were treated separately. The claimant accepted that the unpaid wages and holiday pay claims lay, if at all, against Dasa, so those claims against SMBC and JRIE were struck out. The claims against Harrington Starr were also dismissed by consent. The tribunal left the unpaid wages and holiday pay claims against Dasa as the only live claims and issued directions for them to be properly particularised. No deposit order was made.