Continuity of Employment

February 6, 2019, By

In the case of SD (Aberdeen) v Wright, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether an Employment Tribunal was entitled to draw an inference that two companies were associated in a case where a relevant director had failed to give evidence to the contrary. In this case, the Claimant, Mr Wright, worked for entities trading as ‘AMPM’ from 20th May 2014 to 23rd August 2016. He was then dismissed but was unclear who to sue for unfair dismissal. As he was unclear on who to sue, the Claimant brought claims against 19 companies. An Employment Tribunal determined that the Claimant was employed by CP Ltd between 20th May 2014 and 3rd September 2015 and by SD limited from 3rd September 2015 until 23rd August 2016. The Tribunal also determined that these two entities were associated companies. SD appealed. In this case the EAT determined that the Tribunal was entitled to draw an inference that the Companies were associated on the basis that a director (Mr Kerr), described as a “principal actor” in both companies could have given evidence to shed light on the issue, but failed to do so.