Case 1602927/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. K. Roberts v D Chubb Ltd. — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602927/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Evans Representation
- Venue
- Caernarfon Justice Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. K. Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Caernarfon Justice Centre on 7 May 2024, held that Mrs. K. Roberts was not an employee of D Chubb Ltd. On that basis, it found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. That claim was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for entitlement to notice pay because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The written judgment records that the Claimant was a worker of the Respondent as defined in s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, but not an employee. The decision was sent to the parties on 13 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for entitlement to notice pay, and dismissed it. The judgment also records that the Claimant was a worker within s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, but not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(3)(b) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.