Case 3309105/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mukondo v Nexus Workforce Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3309105/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coll
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mukondo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 18 August 2025, Employment Judge Coll held that the 2nd Respondent was not the claimant's employer and that there were no claims over which the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction in relation to the 2nd Respondent, who was the Principal. The 2nd Respondent was therefore removed from the proceedings under Rule 35 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The only claim recorded in the judgment was a claim relating to Statutory Sick Pay. That claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held that the 2nd Respondent was not the claimant's employer, that there were no claims within jurisdiction against the 2nd Respondent, and removed it from the proceedings under Rule 35 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim relating to Statutory Sick Pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 35 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.