Case 3201269/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Yoong v Randstad Solutions Ltd and 3 others — 2024

Case reference: 3201269/2023
Decision date: 26 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Jones Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Mr C Yoong

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not an employee of the 1st or 2nd Respondent at the relevant time. It dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and also dismissed the disability discrimination by association complaint against the 1st and/or 2nd Respondents on jurisdictional grounds because the Claimant was not an employee or worker of those respondents at the relevant time.

The complaints against the 3rd and 4th Respondents were dismissed because they were not acting as agents for the 2nd Respondent at the relevant time. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker for the 2nd Respondent under Section 43K(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 and could pursue his complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures against the 2nd Respondent.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment describes this as a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal and dismisses it because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, as the Claimant was not an employee of the 1st or 2nd Respondent at the relevant time.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment describes this as disability discrimination by association and dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction against the 1st and/or 2nd Respondents because the Claimant was not an employee or worker of those respondents at the relevant time.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Whistleblowing	The judgment states that the Claimant was a worker for the 2nd Respondent under Section 43K(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 and can pursue his complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures against the 2nd Respondent. It does not finally determine the merits of that complaint.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.