Mr E Shaju v Vishal and Others: 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6018483/2024, 6012138/2025
Mr E ShajuClaimantVishal and OthersRespondent
Employment Judge M Da Costa sitting aloneDate 16 April 2026

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act[1]The case was listed today for its preliminary case management hearing.[2]There was an application today by the respondent pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal.[3]Both parties agreed that the claimant started employment with R3 in June 2023 and that the effective date of the termination of his employment was 4 September 2024. Therefore, both parties agreed that the claimant had not been continuously employed by R3 for two years ending with the effective date of termination. Both parties agreed that, outside of being entities that were part and parcel of R3, R1 Case No. 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025 and R2 had no separate status and did, themselves, not employ the claimant, therefore the claimant could not bring a claim for unfair dismissal against R1 and/or R2.[4]This means that section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 operates as a statutory bar to the claimant bringing a claim of unfair dismissal against any or all of R1, R2 and R3. Therefore such a claim could not possibly succeed.[5]Therefore the “no reasonable prospect of success” limb of rule 38(1)(a) applies.[6]Since this is a jurisdictional point because section operates as a bar to the claimant bringing a claim for unfair dismissal, I must exercise my discretion to operate rule 38(1)(a).[7]Accordingly, the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is struck out and thereby dismissed.[8]The claimant’s other claims, namely for direct race discrimination and detriment due to a protected disclosure, remain and are not affected by this judgment. Employment Judge M Da Costa 16 April 2026 Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.