Case 2600244/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Merriman v 1ST Staff Limited (& Others) and 11 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600244/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Broughton
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
13 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R Broughton (sitting alone) at Lincoln on 19 August 2024, with further written submissions from the Claimant on 25 August 2024 and deliberations in chambers on 31 October 2024. Four sets of proceedings brought by Ms C Merriman against twelve respondents (a recruitment agency, payroll/umbrella companies, a residential services provider and a number of individuals) had been consolidated. The Claimant did not attend the hearing; R1 to R5 were represented by Mrs Peckman, R6 by Mr Rogers, and R7 to R12 did not attend. The Tribunal made a preliminary determination that the Claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
The Tribunal made a series of dismissal, withdrawal and strike-out decisions. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 ERA was dismissed on withdrawal against every respondent, and the section 104 ERA automatic unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success against every respondent. Claims against R6 (Kisimul Group Ltd) under TUPE, the Working Time Regulations and section 13 ERA were dismissed on withdrawal, with all other claims against R6 struck out. All claims against R11 (Ross Outer Ltd) and R12 (EM Butterworth Ltd) were struck out because those companies are dissolved and no application had been made to restore them.
For the discrimination, unlawful deduction and TUPE claims, the Tribunal struck out claims against most individual respondents but allowed certain claims to continue against R1 (1st Staff Ltd), R3 (Yaron Woolf), R4 (Ms Emma Davies) and R10 (PA Rigby Ltd), as set out in Appendix 1. The Tribunal declined to strike out the unlawful deductions and WTR claims against R1 and R10 given the lack of clarity over the contractual relationships between the various entities, and recorded that the Claimant had not pleaded an indirect discrimination (section 19) claim despite Employment Judge Ahmed's earlier orders. A further telephone case management hearing was directed to identify the remaining claims and consider whether a deposit order under Rule 39 might be appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 ERA dismissed on withdrawal as against each and every respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success against all respondents. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out as against R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 and R9. Claims continue against R1 and R10 (per Appendix 1 list of claims remaining); no final determination on the merits at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | WTR claims struck out as against R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 and R9; dismissed on withdrawal against R6. Claims for unpaid holiday pay continue against R1 and R10 (Appendix 1). | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | TUPE claims dismissed on withdrawal against R6 and struck out as against R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 and R9. Claim continues against R10 only (Appendix 1). | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA (something arising from disability) struck out under Rule 37 against all respondents other than R1; section 20/21 (reasonable adjustments) struck out against R3, R4, R5 and R6; section 13 direct discrimination struck out against all respondents other than R1. Tribunal found the Claimant was a disabled person under s.6 EqA at the relevant time. Claims continue against R1 (and R10 for reasonable adjustments) per Appendix 1. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 104 ERA 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 20/21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37
- Rule 39
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.