Case 2303495/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Tsang v Mighty Rhino Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303495/2017
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr W Tsang
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide which respondent employed Mr Tsang on 2 August 2017 and whether his continuous employment counted from 9 March 2015. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Tsang and from the second respondent’s witnesses, and it had before it payslips, a P45, rota documents, photographs, and witness statements from former colleagues. It found that, as at 2 August 2017, Mr Tsang was employed by Spoon Basildon Limited. The first respondent, Mighty Rhino Limited, was dismissed from the proceedings.
The tribunal rejected the respondents’ case that Mr Tsang’s employment with Mighty Rhino ended on 6 November 2016 and that he then started with Spoon Basildon on 2 December 2016. It accepted Mr Tsang’s evidence that he worked at Basildon from 19 September 2016 and did so continuously until his dismissal on 2 August 2017. In reaching that conclusion, it preferred the claimant’s evidence and supporting material, including rota entries showing him on duty seven days a week, date-stamped photographs taken at the Basildon restaurant, and statements from former colleagues, over the respondents’ wage records and P45, which it did not accept as accurate.
Applying sections 212(1) and 218(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that Mr Tsang’s continuous employment ran from 9 March 2015 to 2 August 2017. The effect of that finding was that the continuity requirement for statutory employment rights, including unfair dismissal and redundancy payment, was satisfied on the tribunal’s findings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a preliminary hearing on employer identity and continuity of employment only. It does not determine the substantive claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, unpaid wages, notice pay, or holiday pay. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.212(1) ERA 1996
- s.218(6) ERA 1996
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.