header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 October 2009 / Elliot Gold
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Not in my name

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Elliot Gold discusses the scenario of dismissal resulting from a request by a third party

When a third party demands the removal of a worker employed by a supplier, both the worker and the supplier enter a type of twilight-zone. It may bring to an end the employment relationship between them but without the safeguards of the normal disciplinary processes.

Both parties may feel hard done-by and the supplier may find itself entangled in a claim for unfair dismissal due to decisions made by the third party that are beyond its control.

Drawing the strands together

The law relating to when such a dismissal will be unfair has bounced around the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the Court of Appeal. Emerging from what amounts almost to a daisy chain of cases, each referring to one other, the EAT in Henderson v CST Limited [2009] UKEAT/0209/09/SM has drawn together all the strands, adding a few fibres of its own.

The upshot is that a company supplying its workers to a third party and who

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll