Case 2204528/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A. Swan v Physio Remedies Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2204528/2025
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A. Swan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it did not have jurisdiction to determine that claim.
The remaining claims, identified as deductions from wages/breach of contract, notice pay, and a claim in relation to equipment, were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that deductions from wages/breach of contract claims were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that deductions from wages/breach of contract claims, notice pay, and a claim in relation to equipment were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a remaining claim in relation to equipment but does not identify a more specific statutory category. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.