Case 2202255/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr E McFarlane, employment consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202255/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge P Klimov sat alone at London Central by video on 19 and 20 December 2022. The tribunal held that Miss Catherine Buckley was not an employee of KMP Yoga Ltd t/a The Hot Spot Yoga within the meaning of s.230(1) ERA 1996, but that she was a worker within s.230(3)(b) ERA and was in employment for the purposes of s.83(2)(a) EqA 2010.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment records that the claimant’s claims under the Equality Act 2010 were to proceed to the final hearing. As part of the preliminary issues, the tribunal found that at the relevant times the claimant had a disability within s.6 EqA by reason of post-traumatic stress disorder, and did not have a disability by reason of temporomandibular joint dislocation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of s.230(1) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996
- s.83(2)(a) EqA 2010
- s.6 EqA 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.