Case 1601450/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Jordan v Cardiff Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601450/2024
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Jordan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R Harfield at Cardiff on 3 and 4 April 2025 to determine whether the Claimant, an ARC respite carer, was an employee of Cardiff Council, when the relationship ended, and whether her claims were presented in time. The Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay, breach of contract (notice pay), unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday pay. The Claimant did not argue worker status in the alternative for the wages and holiday pay claims.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent at the relevant time. Applying the foster carer case law authorities (including W v Essex County Council and Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council) and the statutory framework, the Tribunal concluded that the arrangement was not contractual in nature for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As a result, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay, breach of contract, unauthorised deduction from wages or holiday pay complaints, and they were dismissed.
The Tribunal also found that the complaints were not presented within the applicable time limits and declined to extend time. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have brought the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, wages and holiday pay claims within time following the termination of the ARC respite carer arrangement on 22 September 2023, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the statutory redundancy payment claim. The complaints would therefore have been dismissed on the time point as well.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction: the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent at the relevant time. The complaint would also have been dismissed as out of time, the Tribunal declining to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Claimant was not an employee. The Tribunal also would not have considered it just and equitable to extend time within the second 6 month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (employee status not established) and would also have been dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Claimant did not argue worker status in the alternative. Would also have been dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Claimant did not argue worker status in the alternative for the holiday pay complaint. Would also have been dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- W v Essex County Council [1999] Fam 90
- Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
- Norweb plc v Dixon [1995] 1 WLR 646
- Oni and others v London Borough of Waltham Forest and Others
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.