Case 3301612/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Mr Nigel Brain – Non practising solicitor For the Second Respondent: Mr Simon Pender - Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301612/2020
- Decision date
- 31 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing on 28 October 2021 before Employment Judge A M Buchanan. The tribunal determined that the claimant was not dismissed by the first respondent, GI Group Recruitment Limited, on 14 August 2019, so the unfair dismissal complaint against that respondent was dismissed. It also held that the claimant was not an employee of the second respondent, BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited, for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so any unfair dismissal complaint against the second respondent was also dismissed.
The tribunal made separate preliminary findings on the disability discrimination complaints. As against the first respondent, the claim was allowed to proceed to a full hearing through the gateway provided by section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. As against the second respondent, the tribunal found the claim was outside the ordinary three-month time limit in section 123(1)(a), but that it had been brought within such further period as was just and equitable under section 123(1)(b), so it could proceed to a final hearing through the gateway provided by section 41 of the Equality Act 2010. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Against the first respondent, GI Group Recruitment Limited. The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the first respondent on 14 August 2019, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Against the first respondent, GI Group Recruitment Limited. The disability discrimination complaint was allowed to proceed to a full hearing through the gateway in section 39 of the Equality Act 2010; this was a preliminary jurisdictional decision, not a final merits outcome. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Against the second respondent, BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited. The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the second respondent within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so any unfair dismissal complaint against that respondent was dismissed. The time-limit question under section 111(2) and section 111(2A) of the 1996 Act therefore fell away. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Against the second respondent, BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited. The tribunal found the disability discrimination claim was not presented within the normal three-month period under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, but it was brought within such further period as was just and equitable under section 123(1)(b), so it could proceed to a final hearing through the gateway in section 41 of the Equality Act 2010. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.111(2) and s.111(2A) ERA 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(a) and s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010 gateway
- s.41 Equality Act 2010 gateway
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.