Case 1401766/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Sally-Anne Tarsey v Long Ashton Parish Council and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401766/2022
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Bristol on 6, 7 and 8 November 2023 before Employment Judge Oliver Representation. The tribunal decided the claimant was not an employee of Long Ashton Parish Council within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and was not a worker of the First Respondent within section 230 or the extended definition in section 43K of that Act.
The written record states that the detriment claims could proceed against the First Respondent because it accepted that it had been acting as agent of the Second Respondent. The record does not set out any substantive merits decision on the detriment allegations, and no monetary award is recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the First Respondent within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant was not a worker of the First Respondent within section 230, or the extended definition in section 43K, of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but said the detriment claims could proceed against the First Respondent because it accepted it had been acting as agent of the Second Respondent. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43K 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.