Background
Talwinder Singh Nagra worked at Unipart Group Limited under a tripartite arrangement involving recruitment agency RE People Limited. He maintained before the Employment Tribunal that Supply Chain Coordination Limited employed him and that Unipart was liable as SCCL’s agent. At an earlier case-management hearing, an Employment Judge explained that the contract-worker provisions in section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 might be relevant, but Nagra did not adopt that alternative case.
After a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that Nagra had a genuine agency-worker arrangement with RE People, had been assigned to Unipart, and had no employment relationship with SCCL. It dismissed his claims against SCCL and Unipart. Nagra appealed, principally arguing that the Tribunal should have considered Unipart’s potential liability under section 41 despite his failure to plead or advance that claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It accepted that potential liability under section 41 “shouted out” from the parties’ cases, but held that the Tribunal had responded appropriately when the earlier Employment Judge identified and explained that route. The Tribunal was not required to raise it again or formulate an alternative case for Nagra after he chose to pursue a different theory.
The EAT also rejected the remaining grounds. Any possible error about whether Nagra was “employed” by RE People for Equality Act purposes was immaterial because no section 41 claim against Unipart had to be decided. The Tribunal was not required to consider an unadvanced case that Unipart directly employed him, and its finding that his move to an analyst role did not materially change the agency arrangements was neither perverse nor inadequately reasoned.
Key Takeaways
- A tribunal may need to raise an apparent claim or issue for clarification when it “shouts out” from the material, particularly where a party is unrepresented.
- Once a possible legal route has been adequately explained, fairness does not require the tribunal to repeat the advice or advance that case on the litigant’s behalf.
- Changes in duties, job title, or pay do not by themselves establish a legally significant change from an existing agency-worker arrangement.
Why It Matters
The decision defines the boundary between assisting a litigant in person and compromising judicial impartiality. Employment tribunals have a wide margin when deciding what assistance fairness requires, but their role remains arbitral rather than inquisitorial.
The judgment also underscores that parties bear responsibility for choosing and advancing their claims. An apparently stronger statutory route will not necessarily be determined when it was explained during case management but deliberately left unadvanced.