Case 1404694/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Y Kumar v Bath and North East Somerset Liberal Democrats — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404694/2021
- Decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Y Kumar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol on 20 October 2022, Employment Judge Livesey heard the case with the claimant, Dr Y Kumar, appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr Currie, counsel. The tribunal recorded that Dr Kumar was neither an employee nor a worker of Bath and North East Somerset Liberal Democrats.
That employment-status finding disposed of the case and the tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties on 4 November 2022.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed with the other claims because the tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent, so it did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed with the other claims because the tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent, so it did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed with the other claims because the tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent, so it did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | 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.
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.