Case 2600202/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Poonam Kumari 2600202/2024 v Natalie Eden and 7 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600202/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
9 namedClaimant
Ms. Poonam Kumari 2600202/2024
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Heap sitting alone. The claimant had express employment contracts with LCUK Nottingham Ltd and LCUK Solihull Ltd as Nominated Manager, but the tribunal found that the franchise agreements were between those companies and UK Skin & Laser Clinics Ltd, not between the claimant and any of the named respondents in these proceedings. The claimant accepted there was no express contract with the respondents, and the tribunal found no basis on which to imply one.
On the evidence, the tribunal held that the franchise and group arrangements did not create an employment or worker relationship between the claimant and any respondent. It accepted that the respondents who visited the clinics were employees of Laser Clinics UK Management Limited and that UK Skin & Laser Clinics Ltd had withdrawn approval for the claimant to act as Nominated Manager, but it found that any control under the franchise structure was exercised over the franchisee companies rather than directly over the claimant. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of any respondent for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010, the TUPE regulations or the Working Time Regulations 1998.
As a result, all complaints in claim 2600202/2024 and all complaints in claim 2601049/2024 were struck out for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal also held that the individual respondents could not be personally liable under section 109 Equality Act 2010 because the claimant was not an employee of the same employer. Separately, the complaints of bullying, invasion of privacy or unlawful intrusion, breach of confidentiality, data breach, unlawfully obtaining personal data and misuse of personal information were struck out under Rule 37 because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain them and they had no reasonable prospects of success. The final hearing listed for June 2025 was removed from the list.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Age discrimination was pleaded in both linked cases. The tribunal struck the complaint out for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee or worker of any named respondent and no express or implied contractual relationship was found. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination was pleaded in both linked cases. The tribunal struck the complaint out for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee or worker of any named respondent and no express or implied contractual relationship was found. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay complaint in case 2600202/2024 was struck out for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was not a worker for any respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatically unfair dismissal complaint in the second linked case was struck out for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee of any respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The failure to inform and consult complaint under TUPE in the second linked case was struck out for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee of any respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The complaints of bullying, invasion of privacy or unlawful intrusion, breach of confidentiality, data breach, unlawfully obtaining personal data and misuse of personal information were struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain them. |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- Regulation 2 Working Time Regulations 1998
- TUPE Regulation 2
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Tilson v Alstom Transport
- James v London Borough of Greenwich
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- s.109 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.