Case 3201649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Tew v Paul Davis — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201649/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Tew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Tew did not attend the hearing on 15 November 2019. He had been contacted by the tribunal clerk and said he had not received notice of the hearing, and he confirmed the address held on the tribunal file. Mr Paul Davis attended in person.
Employment Judge Burgher found that Mr Davis, as an individual, was not the claimant's employer. The reasons record that the claimant's ET1 said he had worked at Metro Rod trading as Clear Pipe Limited. On that basis, the claims against Mr Davis were dismissed.
The tribunal also addressed Clear Pipe Limited. It recorded that by letter dated 19 June 2019 the claimant had been told there was no EC certificate against Metro Rod trading as Clear Pipe Limited and had been invited by Employment Judge Gilbert to obtain an urgent one-day turnaround early conciliation certificate to join that company as a respondent. That was not done, so there was no claim against Clear Pipe Limited that satisfied rule 12(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the substantive claim labels. It dismisses the claims because Mr Davis was not the claimant's employer, and because no claim against Clear Pipe Limited satisfied rule 12(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 rule 12(f)
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.