Case 2305582/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Dodds v Genial Associates Limited & Ors. OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305582/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Dodds
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Dodds was employed initially by Brighton Language Centre Ltd and later, with continuity of employment, by West Beach Hotel Ltd, both under the control of Marcello Sarno. Genial Associates Ltd held the freehold of the hotel but was not the claimant's employer. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's May 2019 resignation was withdrawn and treated as having been accepted by the respondent's conduct.
The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 23 October 2019, when settlement negotiations broke down, and rejected the claimant's case that employment ended on a later date. It discounted the backdated P45 showing 15 September 2019 and held that there was no evidence to support that date. On that basis, the claims against West Beach Hotel Ltd for unfair dismissal, TUPE consultation failures and money claims were out of time, although the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to bring them in time.
On the respondent identity issue, the tribunal found that Genial Associates Ltd was never the employer, and it dismissed the claim against Brighton Language School Ltd. It also found that the claimant knew who his employer was from his payslips and had chosen to claim against Genial Associates Ltd because he considered recovery prospects better. The age and race discrimination claims were also out of time, and the tribunal refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim against West Beach Hotel Ltd was out of time because the effective date of termination was 23 October 2019, when settlement negotiations broke down, and it found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The claim for failure to consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 was dismissed as out of time alongside the other claims against West Beach Hotel Ltd. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to 'various money claims' but does not itemise each monetary cause of action separately in the preliminary hearing reasons; those claims were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was not presented within the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit, and the tribunal was not prepared to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was not presented within the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit, and the tribunal was not prepared to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
25 references- s.218(6) ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- s.97 ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- Hutchinson v Westward Television
- Robinson v The Post Office
- Virdi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- DPP v Marshall
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- British Transport Police v Norman
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
- Bowden v Ministry of Justice
- Averns v Stagecoach in Warwickshire
- Hawkins v Ball & Barclays
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
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.