Case 1806711/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Mbuisa v Cygnet Health Care Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806711/2021
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Mbuisa
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined, as a preliminary issue on employment status, that the claimant was not an employee of either Cygnet Health Care Limited or Caireach Limited for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
It also found that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of article 3(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and was not employed under a contract of employment for the purposes of section 3(2) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, and those claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following a preliminary finding that the claimant was not an employee of either respondent, so the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed following a preliminary finding that the claimant was not an employee of either respondent and was not employed under a contract of employment for the purposes of the Tribunal's extension jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 3(a) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Section 3(2) Employment Tribunals 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.