Case 1305876/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305876/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing about whether KPMG should remain a respondent in proceedings brought by the claimant, who was employed by Highways England and worked on a process-simplification project involving KPMG. The tribunal found that KPMG had contracted with Highways England to provide consultancy services and that the claimant's involvement with KPMG arose through her employment with Highways England, not through any contract with KPMG.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary issue was whether an implied contract of employment or some other contract existed between the claimant and KPMG. The tribunal found there was no implied contract, no certainty as to contractual terms, and no necessity to imply one. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant alleged KPMG behaved in a sexist way and sought to rely on EqA liability under ss.109, 110 and 112. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that KPMG was the claimant's employer or agent, or that it could be liable on the evidence. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing KPMG liability for detriment under s.47B ERA 1996 on the preliminary material before it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant also relied on ECHR-based arguments, including Articles 10 and 14. The tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of establishing KPMG liability on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc implied contract test
- Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester s.43K ERA 1996 worker test
- Kemeh v Ministry of Defence agency test
- Blackwood v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust agency principles
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA strike-out test
- Garcia v The Leadership Factor Ltd deposit order test
- Hemdan v Ismail & Al-Megraby deposit order purpose
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.