Case 2501657/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neeraj Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Limited and 5 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501657/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moss REPRESENTATION
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr Neeraj Handa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 6-7 December 2023, the tribunal considered whether the whistleblowing detriment claims against Mr Duncan and Ms McDougall should be struck out, or alternatively made subject to deposit orders. The claimant alleged that he had made protected disclosures and was subjected to detriments by being suspended on 6 April 2023, removed as a director on 13 April 2023, and dismissed on 17 April 2023. The question for the hearing was whether the fourth and fifth respondents could be liable under section 47B ERA 1996 as agents of The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Limited.
The tribunal found that both Mr Duncan and Ms McDougall were independent HR consultants operating under contracts for services. Mr Duncan had been engaged to investigate grievances and make recommendations, and Ms McDougall had been engaged to conduct the disciplinary hearing and make recommendations. The tribunal accepted that each made recommendations only, and that the first respondent remained free to accept or reject them. It held that the relationship did not have the fiduciary character required for agency, and that giving instructions about scope did not mean the consultants were acting on behalf of the company rather than providing services for its benefit.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the matter could be analysed as a joint enterprise, stating that this was a criminal law concept with no place in the employment context. It also rejected the submission that the respondents' pleaded case on the unfair dismissal claim was inconsistent with their position on agency. Applying the principles it identified from Kemeh, Hoppe, and the strike-out authorities, the tribunal concluded that the claims against Mr Duncan and Ms McDougall were hopeless and struck both out. It stated that, even if agency had been arguable, it would not have struck out on the subsidiary point about detriment, but that issue was academic once agency failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 against Mr Steven Duncan (R4); struck out at the open preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success because the tribunal found no arguable agency relationship with the first respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 against Ms Helen McDougall (R5); struck out at the open preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success because the tribunal found no arguable agency relationship with the first respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ministry of Defence v Kemeh
- Hoppe v HMRC
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.