Case 1402349/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Thomas v Cornerstone Care Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402349/2021
- Decision date
- 6 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Representation
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 11 and 12 May 2022, before Employment Judge Hay sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with a preliminary issue only. It found that Mrs S Thomas had at all times been engaged by Cornerstone Care Solutions Ltd on a self-employed basis, and was neither an employee nor a worker.
Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear her claims. The judgment records no substantive liability findings and no monetary remedy, and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment determined only a preliminary status issue. The tribunal found the claimant was engaged on a self-employed basis and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment determined only a preliminary status issue. The tribunal found the claimant was engaged on a self-employed basis and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment determined only a preliminary status issue. The tribunal found the claimant was engaged on a self-employed basis and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment determined only a preliminary status issue. The tribunal found the claimant was engaged on a self-employed basis and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.