Joseph (t/a T-Zone) v Choughari & Anor

Joint and several liability between two employing entities cannot be founded merely on their connection or on associated-employer continuity for an unfair dismissal claim. It requires findings capable of establishing that one entity traded under the other’s name, or another proper basis for treating both as liable for the same obligation.

Where the evidence instead shows separate periods of employment, each employer is liable for the statutory sums arising in its own period. The prospect that one employer may lack assets does not supply a legal basis for joint and several liability.

The claimant worked as a hairdresser, first for Mr Joseph trading as T-Zone and later for Blunt Ltd. The Employment Tribunal found underpayments of the national minimum wage, a failure to provide written employment particulars, and a failure to respond properly to a wage-information request. It made the resulting awards jointly and severally enforceable against both respondents.

Mr Joseph appealed against liability for the whole sum. Blunt Ltd also appealed, while stating that it accepted responsibility for payment. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s findings justified joint and several liability, rather than separate liability for the two periods of employment.

1. Appeals allowed in part. The Employment Tribunal erred in imposing joint and several liability. Its finding that it was difficult to distinguish the two respondents, or that they were connected, did not establish a legal basis for making either liable for all sums due throughout both periods of employment.
2. Continuity of employment through associated employers could be relevant to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal claim. It did not itself establish joint liability for wage underpayments or the other statutory awards. No finding showed that Mr Joseph traded under Blunt Ltd’s name, that Blunt Ltd traded under his name, or that there was otherwise a single employer for the relevant liabilities.
3. The concern that Blunt Ltd, as a company, might have no assets could not cure the absence of a proper legal basis for joint and several liability. Blunt Ltd’s stated willingness to pay the whole award likewise did not alter the legal position.
4. Liability was therefore separated by period and obligation. Mr Joseph was liable for national minimum wage underpayments to 4 January 2011, calculated at £3,748. Blunt Ltd was liable for underpayments from 1 February 2011, calculated at £2,997. Mr Joseph alone was liable for the award for failure to provide written particulars and for the £495 award concerning the wage-information request sent to his business address.

The order was varied to remove joint and several liability and to substitute separate liabilities.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeals to the limited extent of removing the Employment Tribunal’s joint and several liability order.
• Employment Tribunal: found statutory wage and information-related breaches and made awards jointly and severally against Mr Joseph and Blunt Ltd; the citation is not stated in the judgment.