Managing Director with 21 years' service: tribunal decides which company was her employer
A preliminary hearing determined that a managing director who worked across four group companies was employed only by the first respondent. Claims against the other three were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #preliminary-hearing
- #employer-identity
- #group-companies
- #statutory-director
- #jurisdiction
Key facts
- The claimant started work for the first respondent on 19 August 2002 as a personal assistant.
- The claimant's salary was paid by the first respondent throughout her employment.
- The claimant received an employment contract from the first respondent in October 2021.
- The claimant was a statutory director of all four respondent companies.
- The claimant's employment was terminated by the first respondent.
- The claimant did not receive any contract or payment from the second, third, or fourth respondents.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work for the first respondent as a personal assistant.
-
Became Managing Director
Claimant became Managing Director of the Woodhead Group.
-
Employment contract issued
Claimant received a statement of main terms of employment from the first respondent.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Tribunal heard evidence to determine the correct employer identity.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide which of four group companies was the claimant's employer for the purpose of her statutory claims, given that she worked across the group and was a director of all four.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was employed only by the first respondent, Robert Woodhead Ltd (in liquidation). The claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents were dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction over them.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's salary was paid by the first respondent throughout her employment.
- She received her employment contract from the first respondent.
- Her notice of termination was given by the first respondent.
- She never received a contract or payments from the other respondents.
- Although she was a statutory director of all four companies, that did not make her an employee of them.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction only.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work across multiple companies in a group, check which company is actually your employer — look at who pays you, gives you contracts, and has the power to dismiss.
- Being a director of a company does not automatically make you an employee of that company; the tribunal will look at the reality of your working arrangements.
- Keep records of your employment contract, payslips, and any correspondence about your role — these are crucial evidence if there is a dispute about who your employer is.
- If you are bringing a claim against a group of companies, you need to establish an employment relationship with each one, or the tribunal may not have jurisdiction.
A case about employer identity
This case shows how important it is to identify the correct employer when bringing a tribunal claim, especially when working across several companies in a group. The claimant had worked for the Woodhead Group for 21 years, rising from personal assistant to managing director. She was a statutory director of all four respondent companies, but the question was which one was her actual employer.
The tribunal looked at the practical realities: her salary was always paid by the first respondent, she received her contract from that company, and it was the first respondent that gave her notice of termination. Despite her involvement across the group, the other three companies never paid her or issued a contract. The tribunal concluded that she was employed solely by the first respondent.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant brought claims against all four companies, but the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the second, third, and fourth respondents because there was no employment relationship. To succeed against multiple group companies, a claimant needs evidence that each one exercised control over her work or had a contractual relationship with her. Here, the documentary evidence pointed clearly to the first respondent as the sole employer.
Why this result matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals will examine the substance of the working relationship, not just job titles or directorship positions. For employees in group structures, it is worth checking which legal entity is your employer — it may not be the one you assume. For claimants, bringing claims against the wrong respondent can waste time and costs, as the tribunal will dismiss those claims at a preliminary stage.
Similar cases
Pregnancy dismissal claim survives employer identity dispute
A former employee's pregnancy-related unfair dismissal claim against Wales England Care Ltd was allowed to proceed after the tribunal identified the correct employer, dismissing claims against a dissolved company and a liquidated one.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim dismissed after 40-year delay
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Bank of America NA was dismissed as out of time after she presented it nearly 40 years after her employment ended. The tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay.
Former employee's claim dismissed as one day late: ADHD and technical issues not enough
A former DHL employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out after being filed one day late. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit on time, rejecting ADHD and technical difficulties as excuses.
Late ACAS certificate: claim struck out despite tribunal initially accepting it
A prison custody officer's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because she submitted her ET1 without an ACAS early conciliation certificate, and the defect could not be cured by later providing one.