In person For the v Ms Brown (Solicitor for Second Respondent) Ms Jennings (Counsel for First Respondent) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 22 November 2019, Employment Judge Webster struck out the claimant's claims against the second respondent, Hyline Security (UK) Ltd. The claimant was employed by the first respondent and worked on the second respondent's premises. He said that after he raised concerns about possible Data Protection Act and CCTV issues, the second respondent asked for him to be removed from site and this led to his dismissal by the first respondent on 7 July 2017.

The tribunal held that the case the claimant had actually advanced against the second respondent was a claim about his dismissal only. It found that an unfair dismissal claim under the ERA 1996 can only be brought against the claimant's employer, and the second respondent was not the employer and did not dismiss him. The judge accepted that it was arguable the claimant might fall within the extended worker definition in s43K ERA 1996 and might in principle bring a detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996, but the claimant had not pleaded or amended his case on that footing. The tribunal therefore held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out.

In the alternative, the tribunal held that the claim was out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim against the second respondent within time, or at least much earlier than he did, because he knew the relevant facts from the outset and had some advice from Protect. The tribunal relied on the delay between the dismissal, the application to add the second respondent on 4 March 2018, the later particulars on 3 September 2018, and the absence of a persuasive explanation for why the second respondent was not named or particularised earlier.