36-year employee dismissed on redundancy: tribunal allows discrimination claims to proceed
A tribunal has allowed age and sex discrimination claims to proceed against a car sales company, while striking out an unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not employed by the respondent at the time of dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Charles Ware Morris Minor Centre Ltd from 1985 until its liquidation in November 2021.
- The first respondent was incorporated in July 2019 and began trading in March 2020, but the claimant remained employed by the original company.
- The claimant performed car sales work for the first respondent as part of his duties for the original company, without any agreement to change employer.
- The claimant was dismissed by the original company on 10 November 2021 due to redundancy when it went into liquidation.
- The claimant alleged that the first respondent failed to consider him for a sales role given to Shannon Devoy, claiming direct age and sex discrimination.
Timeline
-
Started employment
Claimant began full-time employment with Charles Ware Morris Minor Centre Ltd.
-
Became workshop manager
Claimant became restoration workshop manager, also handling car sales and parts sales.
-
Share acquisition by Ecotec Partners
Shares in Charles Ware Morris Minor Centre Ltd were acquired by Ecotec Partners Ltd; claimant ceased to be a shareholder.
-
First respondent incorporated
Charles Wares Classic Car Sales and Hire Ltd was incorporated.
-
First respondent began trading
The first respondent started trading; claimant continued to perform car sales work for it as part of his duties for the original company.
-
New sales manager appointed
Adrian Fry became sales manager, employed by the original company, to take over car sales work.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by Charles Ware Morris Minor Centre Ltd due to redundancy when the company went into liquidation.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal and direct age/sex discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing
EJ Cuthbert listed a further preliminary hearing to determine time limits and strike-out issues.
-
Preliminary hearing
EJ Hogarth heard the preliminary issues; time limits extended in claimant's favour; unfair dismissal claim struck out; discrimination claims allowed to proceed.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had a reasonable prospect of proving that the first respondent was his employer at the time of dismissal, and whether the direct discrimination claims should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The outcome
The tribunal decided to strike out the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent because the claimant was employed by a separate company (Charles Ware Morris Minor Centre Ltd) at the time of his dismissal. That company had gone into liquidation, and there was no evidence of a TUPE transfer or any employment relationship with the first respondent.
However, the tribunal allowed the direct age and sex discrimination claims to proceed. The claimant alleged that after his dismissal, the first respondent gave a sales role to a younger female employee instead of considering him. The tribunal found that this claim had a reasonable prospect of success and should go to a full hearing.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the hearing was only about preliminary issues.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check which company is your legal employer — especially if you work for multiple related entities — as this determines who you can claim against.
- If you are dismissed by a company that goes into liquidation, you may not be able to claim unfair dismissal against a different company that you worked for informally.
- Discrimination claims can still proceed even if the unfair dismissal claim is struck out, as they are based on different legal tests and time limits.
- Time limits for discrimination claims can be extended if it is 'just and equitable' to do so, even if the claim is filed late.
A long career ends in confusion
This case highlights the difficulties that can arise when an employee works across multiple companies within a group. The claimant had been employed by Charles Ware Morris Minor Centre Ltd for 36 years, but also performed work for a related company, Charles Wares Classic Car Sales and Hire Ltd. When the original company went into liquidation and he was made redundant, he believed he was also employed by the second company and brought claims against it.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal first had to decide whether the claimant was employed by the first respondent at the time of dismissal. It found that he was not — his contract of employment remained with the original company, and there was no evidence of a transfer of employment under TUPE. As a result, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
However, the discrimination claims were different. The claimant alleged that after his dismissal, the first respondent gave a sales role to a younger woman, Shannon Devoy, instead of considering him. The tribunal ruled that this claim had a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to a full hearing. This shows that discrimination claims can survive even when the underlying employment relationship is disputed.
What this means for similar claims
For employees working across multiple companies, it is crucial to understand which entity is your legal employer. If you are dismissed by one company but believe another company in the group is also responsible, you may need to show that you had an employment contract or that TUPE applies. Discrimination claims, however, can be brought against any employer who treats you unfavourably, even if you were not formally employed by them at the time.
The tribunal also extended time limits for the discrimination claims, finding it 'just and equitable' to do so. This is a reminder that late claims can still be accepted if there is a good reason for the delay.
Similar cases
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
Street cleaner's age discrimination claims struck out as speculative
A street cleaner who alleged an eight-year campaign of age discrimination and harassment by his employer had his claims struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.