Hotel manager's unfair dismissal claim fails after naming wrong employer
A business adviser who was made redundant after his employer went into liquidation had his unfair dismissal claim rejected because he named the wrong company as respondent. The tribunal refused his late attempt to add the correct entity.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #wrong-respondent
- #complex-corporate-structure
- #off-payroll-payments
- #tax-avoidance-arrangement
- #preliminary-hearing
- #costs-application-dismissed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by MSB Admiral Limited from 1 May 2017 until its liquidation in November 2020.
- The claimant's remuneration was split: £2,800 net per month via UK payroll and £5,200 net paid off-payroll.
- The claimant's employment transferred to Brandon Tradeco Limited under TUPE after the liquidation.
- The claimant named 'Masteron Group of Companies' as respondent, which is not a legal entity.
- The claimant's application to add Masteron Sdn Bhd and the Choy brothers as respondents was refused.
- The claims against all four named respondents were dismissed as none were the claimant's employer.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for MSB Admiral Limited as owner's representative/general manager for Brandon Hall hotel.
-
Remuneration proposal
Wai Ceong Choy emailed proposing a three-part payment structure: UK payroll, consultancy fees, and school fees.
-
Admiral contract signed
Wai Ceong Choy signed an employment contract with MSB Admiral Limited as employer, showing £28,000 annual salary.
-
Ardoe House acquisition
Claimant began working at Ardoe House; payroll switched to MSB Admiral Ardoe Limited.
-
Furlough discussion
Claimant confirmed he would claim furlough based on his £2,800 monthly payroll salary.
-
Liquidation of trading companies
MSB Admiral Limited and MSB Admiral Ardoe Limited went into liquidation.
-
Notice of dismissal
Wai Ceong Choy gave claimant 6 months' notice of termination.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
Claim presented
Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears of pay.
-
Preliminary hearing decision
Employment Judge Jones dismissed claims against all respondents and refused amendment to add new respondents.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend his claim to add the correct employer, Masteron Sdn Bhd and the Choy brothers, after he had mistakenly named 'Masteron Group of Companies' and other related entities.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims against all four named respondents because none of them was the claimant's employer at the relevant time.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's employment had transferred under TUPE to Brandon Tradeco Limited after the liquidation of his original employer, but he had not named that company correctly.
- His application to add Masteron Sdn Bhd and the Choy brothers as respondents was refused because it was made too late and would prejudice the respondents.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always check the exact legal name of your employer before lodging a tribunal claim — naming a group or holding company is not enough.
- If you are unsure who your employer is, seek legal advice early and consider making an application to amend before any preliminary hearing.
- Complex corporate structures and off-payroll payments can make it difficult to identify the correct respondent — keep records of all contracts and payslips.
- Tribunals are reluctant to allow amendments that add new parties after the claim has been presented, especially if it would cause significant delay or prejudice.
A case of mistaken identity
This case shows how getting the name of your employer wrong can be fatal to an employment claim, even if the underlying facts about redundancy and unfair dismissal appear strong. The claimant, a business adviser and hotel manager with four years' service, was made redundant after his employer went into liquidation. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay, and holiday pay — but named 'Masteron Group of Companies' as the respondent, which was not a legal entity.
What went wrong
The claimant's employment had a complex history. He was originally employed by MSB Admiral Limited, which went into liquidation in November 2020. His employment then transferred under TUPE to Brandon Tradeco Limited. However, the claimant named several other companies in his claim form, none of which was his employer at the time of dismissal. The tribunal found that the correct employer was Brandon Tradeco Limited, but the claimant had not named it properly and his application to add the correct parties came too late.
Why the result matters
The tribunal refused to allow the claimant to amend his claim to add Masteron Sdn Bhd and the Choy brothers as respondents, because the application was made after the deadline set at a previous preliminary hearing. The tribunal also noted that the proposed respondents would suffer prejudice if the amendment were allowed. This case is a reminder that in complex corporate structures, identifying the correct employer is a critical first step. Off-payroll payments and group structures can obscure the true employer, but tribunals will not always give claimants a second chance to get it right.
Similar cases
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.
Funeral director with 31 years' service fails to establish disability status
An employment tribunal has ruled that a funeral director with 31 years' service was not a disabled person under the Equality Act, dismissing his disability discrimination claims.
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
ADHD disability claim fails for lack of medical evidence
A former employee who claimed disability discrimination based on ADHD had her claim dismissed after the tribunal found she had not proven she had the condition on the balance of probabilities.