In this case the Claimant sought various remedies from a number of persons. The first person she convened was Lloyds Banking Group plc. In a previous tribunal application, the Claimant had convened Lloyds Banking Group plc together with other persons. The Tribunal had decided she was not employed by Lloyds and was not entitled to seek a remedy from them. Lloyds were a holding company in the group of companies to which the 2nd Respondent belonged. The Tribunal had decided that they were not her employer and that she did not work for them. The tribunal decided that the 2nd respondent was her employer. In the present claim the Claimant sought further remedies in respect of other wrongs. These however arose in respect of the same contract of employment and period of employment. The 1st Respondent took a plea of res judicata which was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal it was submitted that it was open to the Tribunal to consider the claim against the 1st Respondent because the tribunal that had adjudicated the Claimant’s first claim had not dealt with certain matters relevant to the question of her status as an employee or worker. It was further submitted that even if it had, there were exceptional circumstances that justified the claim continuing against the 1st Respondent. The Claimant submitted that the tribunal had been in error in upholding the res judicata plea and striking out the claim. Held the tribunal had not been in error. The question of the Claimant’s status as an employee or worker was the basis upon which all other substantive claims rested. Where that question had been decided it was not open to the Claimant to relitigate the issue. In any event the fresh arguments which it was said had been raised had already been dealt with by the tribunal that heard the first claim. No exceptional circumstance had been demonstrated that justified repelling the plea of res judicata.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0009 – 20 – 2210
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661657
