Case 2202517/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202517/2019
- Decision date
- 24 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal QC
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant said he remained employed by the respondent until 24 June 2019 and brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, holiday pay and arrears of pay, the latter clarified as a breach of contract claim. The tribunal explained that, for any of those claims to be within its jurisdiction, he had to show that his employment had continued to about June 2019, including for the breach of contract claim under the 1994 Extension of Jurisdiction Regulations.
The tribunal relied on the earlier dismissal in 2014 and the prior tribunal judgment in case 2201681/14, which had already found that the claimant had been dismissed in 2014. It rejected the claimant's attempt to rely on Societe Generale v Geys as materially different, because the claimant had appealed the dismissal and previously presented it as a dismissal claim, and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to ignore or reconsider the earlier finding.
On the facts before it, the tribunal found that the claimant's later work from home between 2014 and 2019 was voluntary, was not required by the respondent, was not known to the respondent in advance, and was not subject to any obligation to pay. It therefore found there was no sufficient mutuality of obligation and no continuing contract of employment after June 2014.
The tribunal struck out the present claims under rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found the claimant was not employed by the respondent between June 2014 and June 2019, so the claim had no reasonable prospects of success; the merits were not determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) on the same jurisdictional basis; the tribunal did not determine the discrimination allegations on their merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found there was no continuing employment relationship after June 2014, so the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant clarified that the arrears-of-pay claim was being pursued as a breach of contract claim; it was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found no employment after June 2014 and therefore no jurisdiction under the 1994 Extension of Jurisdiction Regulations, including reg. 7. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- 1994 Extension of Jurisdiction Regulations, reg. 7
- mutuality of obligation
- Societe Generale v Geys [2012] UKSC 63
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.