Mr D Canning v Edison Group Ltd — 2025

The claimant had presented a claim on 15 January 2025 seeking payment in respect of salary, benefits, accrued holidays and notice. After service issues, a response was returned in the name of Edison Group Ltd, but the Tribunal recorded that the claim had been against Principal Building Limited and that Edison Group Ltd was not a party. The claimant argued that Edison Group Ltd was a controlling or shadow employer within the group, relying in part on Autoclenz, but the Tribunal held that he had still not shown that his employer was any entity other than PBL.

On the written reconsideration application, the Tribunal applied rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked. It found that the material provided added nothing of substance, that the claimant's arguments were contrary to ordinary principles of separate corporate personality, and that there was no evidence of a TUPE-style transfer or other basis for making another group company liable for the sums said to be due.

The Tribunal also considered the respondent's request for an expenses order or, alternatively, a preparation time order. Applying rules 73 and 74 and the approach in Radia v Jefferies International Ltd, it accepted that the original claim had no reasonable prospect of success but found that the claimant did not know, and ought not reasonably to have known, that when he brought it. It also found that his conduct was not vexatious, abusive, unreasonable or disruptive. In addition, the respondent's figures were not sufficiently supported and part of the claim for expenses related to a company that was not a party. No expenses or preparation time order was made.