Case 2402937/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kler v Desap Enterprises Limited and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402937/2021
- Decision date
- 22 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker REPRESENTATION
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M Kler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing on 8 November 2021, Employment Judge Whittaker recorded that Mr Kler accepted Sunbelt Rentals Limited was never his employer and had never issued him with a contract of employment. The tribunal found that his connection with Sunbelt arose only because Desap Enterprises Limited had a commercial contract with Sunbelt for outsourced IT services.
The tribunal also found there was no evidence to show that Mr Kler was a contractor of Sunbelt within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010, and that there were no circumstances establishing a contractor relationship between them. On that basis, the tribunal held that Sunbelt could not be found to have discriminated against Mr Kler or to be liable for any discriminatory acts of the first or third respondent. Sunbelt Rentals Limited was therefore dismissed as a respondent to the discrimination claims accepted by the tribunal and listed in the annex to the preliminary hearing case summary.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Sunbelt Rentals Limited was dismissed as a respondent to the discrimination claims accepted by the tribunal. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 41 Equality Act 2010
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.