Case 1600874/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Hayward v MVRSS Group Ltd (dissolved) (“R1”) MVRSS Training Ltd (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) (R2”) Wales England Care Ltd (“R3”) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600874/2022
- Decision date
- 19 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- Newport
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Newport on 14 September 2023, Employment Judge S Moore dismissed the claimant's claim against MVRSS Group Ltd (R1) because the company was dissolved and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. The claim against MVRSS Training Ltd (R2) was also dismissed because the tribunal found that R2 was not the claimant's employer within the meaning of section 230(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant was, at all material times, employed by Wales England Care Ltd (R3) within the meaning of section 230(4) ERA 1996. The written record states that the claimant's claims against R3 were to be determined at a final hearing listed for 5, 6 and 7 February 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed against the first respondent because MVRSS Group Ltd was dissolved and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed against the second respondent because the tribunal found MVRSS Training Ltd was not the claimant's employer within the meaning of section 230(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230(4) 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.