Bilfinger (UK) Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant applied to amend his claim to add INEOS FPS Limited as a second respondent, alleging that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of disability as a direct result of an instruction from INEOS to Bilfinger (UK) Limited. Employment Judge Mcfatridge granted the application, finding that there were issues between the claimant and the proposed second respondent falling within the tribunal's jurisdiction and that it was in the interests of justice to have them determined in these proceedings.

The tribunal found that there were clear issues falling within its jurisdiction between the claimant and the proposed second respondent (INEOS FPS Limited), as the claimant alleged he was dismissed as a direct result of a discriminatory instruction from INEOS, and that it was in the interests of justice to determine these issues in the proceedings rather than in separate litigation.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether INEOS FPS Limited should be added as a second respondent
• •Application to amend claim under rule 35 of Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
• •Alleged unfair dismissal by Bilfinger (UK) Limited following instruction from INEOS FPS Limited
• •Alleged disability discrimination contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act
• •Whether issues fall within tribunal jurisdiction and whether it is in the interests of justice to determine them in these proceedings

The full source document is available from the official publication page.