Case 2200470/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Soek Yee Ashley Wong v Grant Thornton Agile Talent Solutions Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200470/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Soek Yee Ashley Wong
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Soek Yee Ashley Wong, had originally brought claims for unpaid salary for 11-22 December 2023, accrued but untaken annual leave, pay in lieu of notice, and pension contributions. By the start of the hearing, the Claimant said that three of those matters had been sorted out, leaving only the claim for pay in lieu of notice.
The Claimant had been engaged under an Assignment Only Worker Agreement. The Tribunal recorded that, after the legal distinction between employee and worker was explained, the parties agreed there was no mutuality of obligation: the Respondent was under no duty to offer work and the Claimant was under no duty to accept it. The Claimant therefore conceded that she was a worker and not an employee.
The Tribunal held that, under section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 together with the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, it only has jurisdiction to hear contractual claims brought by employees. As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims brought by workers, and a claim for pay in lieu of notice can only be brought as a breach of contract claim, the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The only outstanding claim at the hearing was for pay in lieu of notice. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim brought by a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 SI 1994/1623
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.