Case 2203407/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Watters v Dominvs Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203407/2020
- Decision date
- 26 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Watters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Watters brought Equality Act complaints against Dominvs Group Ltd arising from a contract that began on 2 December 2019 and ended on 17 February 2020. At the open preliminary hearing on 17 February 2021, Employment Judge Henderson, sitting alone, decided the respondent's jurisdiction objection. The claimant said the arrangement was employment and that it ended after she told RA she had been diagnosed with pre-cancerous cells in her breast; the respondent said she was a self-employed consultant.
The tribunal found that the contemporaneous emails, the signed consultancy agreement and the invoicing arrangements pointed to a business venture and a consultancy rather than an employment relationship. It accepted that the agreement described the claimant and K&M Ventures Ltd as independent contractors, allowed substitution, imposed personal liability and was consistent with invoices being raised through K&M. The claimant's evidence that she believed the agreement was really a contract of employment as a PA was not accepted.
Applying section 41 and section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, and referring to Autoclenz, Windle and Uber, the tribunal held that the claimant was an independent provider of services and not in a relationship of subordination with the respondent. It also held that she was not a contract worker because she was not employed by K&M Ventures Ltd and supplied by that company. The result was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination/harassment claims, and the June 2021 final hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to disability discrimination/harassment claims collectively. The tribunal disposed of them on a preliminary jurisdiction issue, holding the claimant was self-employed and outside sections 41 and 83(2)(a) EQA 2010, so the complaint could not proceed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 41 Equality Act 2010
- section 83(2) Equality Act 2010
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Windle v Secretary of State for Justice
- Uber BV and others v Aslam and others
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.