Case 3314706/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314706/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Watford by video on 15 August 2025, Employment Judge Hyams, sitting alone, considered the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent. The judgment records that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was therefore struck out.
The tribunal found that, at all material times, the claimant had a contract of employment with the second respondent. Applying Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd and Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Limited, the judge said that, unless there is something unusual about the circumstances, an employee cannot be employed by two employers to do the same job. The tribunal found there was nothing in the circumstances to justify or require a conclusion that the claimant was employed by both respondents.
The tribunal also held that, in any event, the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and so could not bring an unfair dismissal claim within the meaning of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd
- Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Limited
- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.