R Henson v London Borough of Harrow and others: 3300016/2022 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]At all material times, the Claimant's (sole) employer was the London Borough of Harrow. That issue, being one determinative of liability, was decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 53.[2]The claims against the following Respondents are dismissed in their entirety on the basis that the Respondents were not the Claimant's employers: Sean Harriss (3300626/2022) Charlie Stewart (3300652/2022) Varsha Parmer (3300653/2022) Hugh Peart (3300655/2022) Case No: 3300016/2022; 3300626/2022; 3300652/2022; 3300653/2022; 3300655/2022; 3300657/2022; 3300658/2022; 3300659/2022; 3300661/2022; 3300663/2022; 3300664/2022 Sarah Wilson (3300657/2022) Mark Billington (3300658/2022) Paul Hewitt (3300659/2022) Natasha Proctor (3300661/2022) Pritesh Patel (3300663/2022) Mike Butler (3300664/2022