Case 2603601/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Matthews v Terex Pegson Coalville, and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603601/2020
- Decision date
- 26 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr G Matthews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 52 judgment dealing only with the correct respondent. The second respondent accepted in its ET3 that it was the claimant’s employer and the correct respondent to the claims. It applied for the dismissal of the first and third respondents from the proceedings.
The tribunal accepted the respondents’ contentions. It found that the first respondent was only a trading name of the second respondent, and that the third respondent was a separate legal entity within the wider group but was not active and had no connection with the claimant’s employment. The claimant was given an opportunity to comment on the application on 26 November 2020 but did not respond.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the proceedings against the first and third respondents. The claim against the second respondent was expressly stated to be unaffected by the judgment, so there was no merits finding and no award made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the proceedings against the first and third respondents only. This was a party-identity ruling under rule 52, not a merits determination of the underlying employment claim, and the claim against the second respondent was left unaffected. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52
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.