Case 2300887/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brian Kane v Crosslend Gmbh (HRB 160 198 B) and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300887/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Brian Kane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 22 January 2024 before Employment Judge Fowell (sitting alone, by video at Croydon), the Tribunal recorded that the respondents had conceded territorial jurisdiction, the claimant having been employed in the United Kingdom throughout. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to hear all the claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for breach of contract, including any transfer of undertakings in the United Kingdom.
By agreement of the parties, the claims were dismissed against several entities that neither side contended had been the employer at the time of dismissal, leaving Crosslend Gmbh (HRB 160 198 B), The Thing Gmbh (HRB 247 293 B) and Crosslend Investment Advisory Gmbh (HRB 239925) as the first, second and third respondents respectively. The claimant's case was that he was employed by the first respondent; the respondents' case was that employment had transferred to the third respondent (now in liquidation) before dismissal, with a further potential transfer to the second respondent.
The respondents relied on redundancy as the reason for dismissal and accepted liability to make a statutory redundancy payment in the agreed sum of £3,426. The remaining respondents were ordered to be jointly and severally liable to pay that sum. The remaining claims were listed to proceed to a hearing on 22 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Respondents conceded liability for the statutory redundancy payment in the agreed sum of £3,426; remaining respondents held jointly and severally liable. | Upheld | — | £3,426 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,426
- across all upheld claims
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.