In person, through her son Mr G Styles For the v Ms D Cunningham, solicitor — 2019

The tribunal heard submissions from the claimant's son, Mr G Styles, and from Ms Cunningham for the respondent on 11 October 2019. It recorded that the claimant was a self-employed foster carer and that the proceedings were not about the merits of any underlying complaint, but about whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the pleaded claims.

For the breach of contract claim, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. Its reason was that the claimant did not have a contract of employment with the London Borough of Camden and, further, did not have any contract at all with the respondent. On that basis, she was not a worker within the meaning of s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996, so the claim was dismissed.

The tribunal reached the same jurisdictional conclusion for the whistleblowing claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant did not have a contract of employment with the respondent and did not have any form of contract with the respondent, so she was not a worker within ss.43K or 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. That claim was therefore dismissed. The judgment also notes that the respondent's name was amended to the London Borough of Camden and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.