Case 3300016/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v London Borough of Harrow and others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300016/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 31 August 2022 conducted via CVP, Employment Judge Dick determined a preliminary issue under Rule 53: whether the claimant's sole employer at all material times was the London Borough of Harrow. The judgment records that it was.
The claims against Sean Harriss, Charlie Stewart, Varsha Parmer, Hugh Peart, Sarah Wilson, Mark Billington, Paul Hewitt, Natasha Proctor, Pritesh Patel and Mike Butler were dismissed in their entirety because those respondents were not the claimant's employers. Mike Butler was noted as not served and there was no appearance or representation for him. The written record states that oral reasons had been given at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided, and it does not record any merits determination or remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue under Rule 53. The tribunal held London Borough of Harrow was the claimant's sole employer at all material times and dismissed the claims against Sean Harriss, Charlie Stewart, Varsha Parmer, Hugh Peart, Sarah Wilson, Mark Billington, Paul Hewitt, Natasha Proctor, Pritesh Patel and Mike Butler because they were not the claimant's employers. The record does not show a merits decision against Harrow or any monetary award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 53 preliminary issue
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.