Case 1401619/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bryan Slade v Royal Life Saving Society Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401619/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bryan Slade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard Mr Bryan Slade's complaint of unfair dismissal against Royal Life Saving Society Limited on 1 February 2023 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke, sitting by video in Bristol. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The sole issue determined was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. The Tribunal held that Mr Slade was not an employee of the Respondent. On that basis, and subject to s.111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that Mr Slade was not an employee of the Respondent and therefore did not have jurisdiction, subject to s.111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, to hear his unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.