Case 1806915/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bloom v Staffline Recruitment Limited HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806915/2020
- Decision date
- 2 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bloom
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Shulman at a CVP hearing on 11 May 2021. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The only claim before the tribunal was for a redundancy payment, which depended on the claimant establishing employee status rather than worker or independent contractor status.
After hearing most of the claimant's evidence that morning, the tribunal considered that the evidence made it highly unlikely that the claimant was an employee of the respondent. Before the lunch break the tribunal invited the claimant to consider whether it was appropriate to continue. After the adjournment, and before the respondent had called its evidence, the claimant decided to withdraw the claim. The tribunal was satisfied that continuing would have been of little or no benefit to him and recorded the claim as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claim for a redundancy payment was 'dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant'. The claimant had argued that he was an employee rather than a worker or independent contractor, but after giving evidence he decided not to pursue the claim further. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.