Case 2202688/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs HARMONY HAMBLY-SMITH v Mr Simon De Pury and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202688/2020
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs HARMONY HAMBLY-SMITH
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at London Central on 30 April 2021 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The written judgment records that a face-to-face hearing was not practicable because of Coronavirus pandemic restrictions and that the remote hearing was not objected to by the parties.
The tribunal's written judgment was confined to the status of the Second Respondent. It held that, in respect of the proceedings, the Second Respondent was not the Claimant's employer at any relevant time and recorded that the Claimant brought no claims against the Second Respondent.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the Second Respondent was not and could not be liable for any remedy claimed by the Claimant in the proceedings. The written record contains no merits findings on the underlying substantive claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held that the Second Respondent was not the Claimant's employer at any relevant time, recorded that the Claimant brought no claims against the Second Respondent, and therefore held that the Second Respondent was not liable for any remedy claimed in the proceedings. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.