Case 3200664/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr E Lompech-Leneveu (2) Mr A J Berteloot v Alp Technologies Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200664/2021
- Decision date
- 4 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation First
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr E Lompech-Leneveu (2) Mr A J Berteloot
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter the hearing on 31 May and 1 June 2022, the tribunal recorded that the Second Claimant had withdrawn his discrimination claims, so the claims against Mr T Kong were dismissed on withdrawal. The First Claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim was also withdrawn, including the holiday pay issue, and the reasons state that the Working Time Regulations claim was withdrawn as well. No monetary award was made on any withdrawn claim.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the Second Claimant was not an employee during the period when he invoiced through E-Nano and Blackhorse. Applying Ready Mixed Concrete and the later Atholl House guidance on the third limb, it found that the parties intended a contractor relationship during that period. The tribunal therefore held that he did not have two years' continuous service and his unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed both wrongful dismissal claims. It found that both claimants breached clauses 30 to 32 of their contracts by pursuing the E-Nano/Innovate UK opportunity without consent, engaging in other business activities in conflict with the Respondent's interests, and competing for the same grant funding round. Those breaches were held to be fundamental, so ALP Technologies Ltd was entitled to dismiss summarily without notice. The judgment also records that allegations of breach of confidentiality were not made out on the evidence.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers generically to the Second Claimant's discrimination claims and states that they were withdrawn, so claims against Mr Kong were dismissed on withdrawal. The protected characteristic is taken from the case listing context. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers generically to the Second Claimant's discrimination claims and states that they were withdrawn, so claims against Mr Kong were dismissed on withdrawal. The protected characteristic is taken from the case listing context. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Second Claimant was found not to have two years' continuous service because he was not an employee during the period when he invoiced through E-Nano/Blackhorse. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the First Claimant breached clauses 30 to 32 of his contract and that those breaches were fundamental, so summary dismissal without notice was justified. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the Second Claimant breached clauses 30 to 32 of his contract and that those breaches were fundamental, so summary dismissal without notice was justified. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- The Commissioners for HMRC v Atholl House Productions Limited
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.