Case 1303341/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Tadeusz Kulik v Gogar Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303341/2024
- Decision date
- 23 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Tadeusz Kulik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought discrimination claims and the preliminary hearing determined whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear them. The tribunal considered whether the claimant was in employment within section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant owned and operated a limited company, offered services to the respondent through that company, used his own tools and equipment, and had included a right of substitution in the offer accepted by the respondent. Although some features of the relationship pointed towards worker status, including regular hours and an hourly rate, the tribunal found that personal service was not required.
Because the claimant was found not to be an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the discrimination claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim at a preliminary hearing because it found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim at a preliminary hearing because it found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 83(2) Equality Act 2010
- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Jivraj v Hashwani
- Uber BV v Aslam
- personal service as the dominant feature
- unfettered right to substitute
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.