Case 2200107/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Brown (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200107/2019
- Decision date
- 17 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr W Brown (solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of the respondent for the purposes of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, it held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
The respondent had gone into administration before the hearing. The joint administrators had consented to the claim proceeding on the basis that the claimant would not seek costs against the respondent or the administrators, and the claimant's solicitor confirmed that position. No one attended for the respondent.
The unfair dismissal and sex discrimination complaints were not determined on their merits and remained listed for a full merits hearing from 8 to 11 October 2019. The tribunal ordered the administrators to confirm whether the response was being actively pursued, failing which it would be struck out and the tribunal would deal with remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that the claimant was an employee and that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. The substantive complaint remained listed for a full merits hearing and was not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that the claimant was an employee for Equality Act purposes and that it had jurisdiction to hear the sex discrimination complaint. The substantive complaint remained listed for a full merits hearing and was not determined in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010
- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.