Case 6008069/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Transport For London and Others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008069/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only whether the unfair dismissal claim against Transport for London should be struck out or dismissed on the basis that Miss Johnson was not its employee. It recorded that Miss Johnson had a contract with Reed Recruitment Agency to supply her services to Transport for London, Reed paid her, and Reed had a contract with Transport for London.
The tribunal found the arrangement was a traditional agency and end-user arrangement. Applying the authorities it cited, it held that the working arrangements were fully explained by the existing contracts and that it was not necessary to imply a contract of employment between Miss Johnson and Transport for London.
The unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent was dismissed. The judgment stated that the claimant's remaining claims, including disability discrimination claims, would proceed to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent, Transport for London, was dismissed because the claimant was not its employee. The claimant's remaining claims, including disability discrimination, were not adjudicated in this judgment and were to proceed to a later hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] IRLR 302
- Ryanair DAC v Lutz [2025] EWCA Civ 849
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act 2010 sections 41 and 55
- Agency Workers Regulations 2010
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.