Yi-Lucas v Lloyds Banking Group Plc and others UKEATPAS/0009/20/BA

Appeal against the ET’s decision striking out the Claimant’s claim against the First Respondent under the doctrine of res judicata. Appeal dismissed.

In an earlier case, in 2018, it had been decided that the First Respondent was not the Claimant's employer. In the current case in the ET, the Claimant sought to pursue remedies against the First Respondent, amongst others, on the basis that the ET in the 2018 case had neglected to deal with the possibility that she fell with the extended definition of "worker" in section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA"). In the current case, the ET struck out the Claimant's claim under the doctrine of res judicata (which, in Scots law, differs in a number of respects from the English doctrine of res judicata). The Claimant appealed on the grounds that, if an issue had been decided against her without reference to the relevant statutory provision, she could advance the argument that the First Respondent was her employer again in her second claim.

The EAT held that the Claimant's claim failed because the ET in the 2018 case had found that the Claimant's terms of employment were "substantially determined" by the Second Respondent, echoing the terms of section 43K of the ERA. The EAT confirmed that the Claimant could still continue against the remaining Respondents.


Published: 03/02/2021 15:42