Case 1805725/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1. Frances Hart 2. Jonathan Hart v Hart Bathrooms and Kitchens (Thorn) Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1805725/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1. Frances Hart 2. Jonathan Hart
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFrances Hart and Jonathan Hart brought claims for a redundancy payment against Hart Bathrooms and Kitchens (Thorn) Limited. Employment Judge D N Jones held that the claimants were not employees of the first respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so they had no entitlement to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal added that, even if they had been employees, the claims would still fail because they had not complied with section 163(1) of the ERA within 6 months and, although a complaint had been presented within 6 months after that, it was not just and equitable to admit it under section 163(3). The judgment was given orally at the hearing on 19 January 2024 and the written record is dated 22 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Joint claim by Frances Hart and Jonathan Hart; the tribunal held that neither claimant was an employee of the first respondent within section 230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.163(1) ERA 1996
- s.163(3) ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.