In person For the v Mr N Henry, Legal Consultant — 2021

The tribunal first decided the jurisdiction point. It held that the respondent had submitted to the Tribunal's jurisdiction when it filed its ET3 response, because the response did more than claim state immunity: it also advanced substantive defences on dismissal and the money claims. The tribunal therefore held that state immunity was not available to the respondent in this case.

On employment status, the tribunal found that Ms N Malek was engaged on a continuous series of written fixed-term or casual labour arrangements from at least August 2016 to 8 September 2019. It relied on her personal service, fixed hours, the respondent's control over her clerical and reception duties, the absence of any substitution clause, the fact that she worked from the respondent's premises and used its equipment, and the requirement that she apply for leave. The tribunal rejected the argument that her December 2018 leave broke continuity, so she had the two years' service needed for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal also held that the claimant had brought automatic unfair dismissal allegations under Reg. 6 of the Fixed Term Worker Regulations 2002, s.104A ERA 1996 and s.104 ERA 1996. It said the unfair dismissal and money claims had reasonable prospects of success, that the holiday pay claim could be particularised further if required, and that the complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages/failure to pay holiday pay should not be struck out. The claimant's case included allegations that she was paid £6 per hour and that taking holiday could lead to a £42 deduction per day, but no remedy was awarded at this stage.