Case 3204749/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Marc Lyne v Telmar Europe Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204749/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Marc Lyne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 19 January 2023, the tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear Mr Marc Lyne's unfair dismissal claim under s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The dismissal took effect on 31 March 2022. The evidence concerned an April 2019 consultancy arrangement involving Lifelyne Dot Com Ltd and Telmar Communications Ltd, followed by a contract of employment with Telmar Europe Ltd from 1 March 2021.
The tribunal accepted the written consultancy agreement as the exclusive record of the parties' arrangement at that stage. It found that the claimant freely entered the structure, took legal and accountancy advice, and that Lifelyne invoiced for his services. The tribunal preferred Mr Ingram's evidence where there was conflict and rejected the claimant's case that he was directly employed by the respondent from the outset or that the consultancy agreement was a sham.
The tribunal held that, even if it were necessary to look beyond the written agreement and imply a contract between the claimant and Telmar Europe Ltd, he still would not have been an employee. It relied on the express exclusion of employment in the consultancy agreement, the no-continuity clause in the later employment contract, and the overall arrangement as described in the evidence. The tribunal found that the claimant did not have at least two years' continuous employment with the respondent or any sister company, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing jurisdiction decision under s.108(1) ERA 1996. The tribunal held the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment with the respondent or any sister company and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- MOD HQ Defence Dental Service v Kettle
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- James v Greenwich Council
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions
- Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer
- Protectacoat Firthglow Limited v Szilagyi
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.