Ms S Barrett v Tamr Inc and Tamr Ltd: 6014902/2024
JUDGMENT
The claims against the Tamr Inc is struck out.REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the second respondent. The first respondent applies to strike out the claim against the first respondent on the grounds that the claimant was employed by the second respondent and has presented no basis for claiming against the first respondent.[2]The claimant provided further particulars of her claim in which she reaffirmed the contents of her claim form ET1 setting out that her employer was the second respondent. The claimant however puts forward no recognised basis for suggesting that she is also an employee of the first respondent, she confirmed that her employment contract was at all material times with the second respondent. The claimant does not set out that her employment was transferred to the first respondent. The claimant’s claim against first respondent for unfair dismissal has no reasonable prospect of success and is therefore struck out.[3]In respect of the complaints of victimisation and sex discrimination the claimant states:26. Further, or alternatively, Tamr Inc’s US-based employees were, when dealing with the Claimant, acting as Tamr Ltd’s agents. Their wrongful acts/omissions (including the discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal) may be attributed to Tamr Ltd, as principal, on whose behalf the Tamr Inc employees acted as agents.27. In short, Tamr Inc and Tamr Ltd are both liable to the claimant for the actions of the US-based employee because there is a clear nexus between those actions and the United Kingdon, arising from the terms of the employment contract and the habitual place of work of the claimant. Case No: 6014902/2024[4]While the stated passage may potentially give rise to liability towards the claimant by the individual employees of Tamr Inc it would not result in any liability to Tamr Inc because the claimant alleges that the individual employees were acting as agents for Tamr Ltd. Tamr Inc is not in any contractual relationship with the claimant, the potential liability towards the claimant arises from the contractual relationship between the claimant. The supposed agency relationship between the individual employees and Tamr Ltd does not give rise to a basis for the claimant to claim against Tamr Inc.[5]The claimant’s claims against Tamr Inc of victimisation and sex discrimination have no reasonable prospect of success. The claims are struck out. Approved by: