Case 2204013/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Alexander-Stewart v Hays Specialist Recruitment Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204013/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Matthews Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Alexander-Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Alexander-Stewart claimed that Hays Specialist Recruitment Ltd owed her two weeks' pay referable to a notice period after her assignment with University of Arts London ended. The Tribunal found she was a worker for the respondent rather than an employee, and that absent agreement to the contrary she was contractually entitled to four weeks' notice.
The Tribunal found that on 15 February 2022 Ms Hamilton presented a two-week paid notice period as a fait accompli. Ms Alexander-Stewart protested her entitlement to four weeks' notice, but the Tribunal found both sides regarded the contract as at an end on 1 March 2022 after the two paid weeks expired.
The Tribunal concluded that the two paid weeks were a garden leave arrangement, but the disputed further two weeks were not. The remaining claim was therefore a claim for notice pay by a worker arising from an alleged breach of a contractual notice provision. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to decide the claim either as a wages claim under section 23 ERA 1996 or as a contract claim under the 1994 Order, and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for two weeks' notice pay was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, which extends to employees and not workers. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal considered whether the claimed notice pay could be brought as a wages claim under sections 13 and 23 ERA 1996, but found the disputed two weeks were not recoverable as wages because they were not referable to a garden leave period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- balance of probability
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1992] ICR 483
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.