Case 3300062/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v LHR Airports Ltd and MJM Industrial Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 3300062/2017
- Decision date
- 6 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Robinson applied for reconsideration of the reserved preliminary hearing judgment sent on 6 September 2017. The tribunal treated his letters of 13 and 22 September 2017 as an application under rules 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The issue was whether the earlier decision on section 43K of the ERA 1996 should be revisited in light of McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Trust and Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.
The earlier findings, which the judge recalled, were that Mr Robinson had been introduced and supplied by MJM Industrial Limited to work for LHR Airports Limited, that the terms on which he was engaged were in practice substantially determined by MJM, and that MJM was the employer for section 43K purposes. Judge Vowles held that the cited authorities would not have changed that conclusion because, on the findings made, LHR Airports Limited did not in practice substantially determine the terms on which Mr Robinson was engaged.
The tribunal therefore found there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and refused the reconsideration application. Separately, it removed LHR Airports Limited as a party under rule 34 because there were no longer issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction between it, the claimant and the second respondent. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | This judgment only determined an application for reconsideration of a reserved preliminary hearing decision on s.43K ERA 1996 worker status for protected disclosure purposes. The tribunal refused reconsideration; it did not decide the substantive whistleblowing claim in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rules 70-73 reconsideration
- rule 71
- rule 72 no reasonable prospect
- s.43K ERA 1996
- rule 34 removal of party
- McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Trust
- Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.