Mr D Nisbet v Trac Engineering Ltd and 1 other — 2019

The preliminary hearing concerned the second respondent's application to strike out the claim against it. The claimant was employed by the first respondent, which was a subcontractor to Balfour Beatty Ltd; Balfour Beatty had a contractual relationship with the second respondent. The claimant said the second respondent had the final say on suspending his railway tickets and requiring his absence from railway infrastructure for five years, preventing him from obtaining further work in that setting.

The Tribunal found that the claimant had not set out a basis on which the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim against the second respondent. Although the claimant referred to discrimination, he did not identify a protected characteristic within the Equality Act 2010, and the remedy he sought included restoration of railway tickets, which the Tribunal considered it had no power to order.

The Tribunal concluded that, taking the claimant's case at its highest, the claim against the second respondent had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. The claim against the first respondent was expressly preserved and was to proceed at the listed hearing. The second respondent's application for expenses remained to be addressed after provision of information about the claimant's means.