Case 3201891/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Butt 1st v Subway Cambridge UK 2nd Respondent: Subway 3rd Respondent: Buraq Private Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201891/2019
- Decision date
- 23 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Butt 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a case management hearing on 9 December 2019 before Employment Judge Jones. The claimant had issued proceedings against Subway Cambridge UK, Subway and Buraq Private Limited. The First and Second Respondents argued that they had no legal relationship with the claimant, were not UK legal entities, had no employees in the UK and had never employed her.
The claimant confirmed that she had never been given a contract of employment. She said that her payslips named Buraq Private Limited and that Buraq Private Limited had signed forms for her maternity allowance. She accepted that it was likely that Buraq Private Limited was her employer. In those circumstances, and because she did not contend that there was any connection, contract or legal relationship between her and the First and Second Respondents, the tribunal dismissed the proceedings against Subway Cambridge UK and Subway. The judgment records that all claims continued against the Third Respondent, Buraq Private Limited.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary case management decision only. The proceedings against the First and Second Respondents were dismissed because the tribunal found no legal relationship between the claimant and those respondents; all claims continued against the Third Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.