Case 2600521/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Abdyli v JRL Plant and Logistics Limited Second — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600521/2022
- Decision date
- 16 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Abdyli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Rhoden presented a claim of unfair dismissal on 28 February 2022 naming two respondents, including Matthew Burton. The judgment records that an unfair dismissal claim may only be brought against an employer under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996, and that Employment Judge M Butler reviewed the file on 22 June 2022 and identified that Matthew Burton had been named despite apparently not being the claimant's employer.
Employment Judge M Butler wrote to the parties on 22 June 2022 setting out the provisional view that the claim against Matthew Burton should be dismissed and directing that, absent objection within seven days, the claim would be dismissed. The Second Claimant did not object within that period.
Accordingly, Employment Judge Smith dismissed the Second Claimant's claim against the Second Respondent, Matthew Burton. The judgment does not record any merits finding on the underlying dismissal claim or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Second Claimant, Mr G Rhoden, brought an unfair dismissal claim against Matthew Burton as the Second Respondent. The tribunal noted that an unfair dismissal claim may only be brought against an employer under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996, and no objection was made after Employment Judge M Butler indicated that the claim against Matthew Burton should be dismissed because he appeared not to be the claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.