Mr M Bramall v Flow Logistics Limited and 5 others — 2022

The claimant brought a First Claim in time against Flow Logistics Ltd and various Amazon entities, alleging unfair dismissal, holiday pay and other payments. He later brought a Second Claim against Nexus Workforce Ltd t/a Flow Logistics after Nexus' solicitors said Nexus was the entity that had engaged him. The preliminary hearing considered whether Nexus should be substituted into the First Claim and whether the Second Claim was out of time.

The Tribunal held that the claimant had not made a genuine mistake in naming Flow Logistics Ltd. It found that the claimant was legally represented when the First Claim was presented and had access to information identifying Nexus, including the consultancy agreement, policy confirmation documents, bank payment entries and invoice address. Although Nexus used the trading name Flow Logistics and the Tribunal accepted that this supported the claimant's account of being mistaken, it was not determinative in light of the other material.

The Tribunal refused to substitute Nexus as respondent in the First Claim. It struck out the claim against Flow Logistics Ltd because that company had no connection with the subject matter of the claim. For the Second Claim, the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to bring the claim against Nexus within the primary limitation period, so the time extension test was not met and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.