Case 2207687/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hibbert v Moriox UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207687/2020
- Decision date
- 31 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deol Date
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hibbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing before Employment Judge Deol on 16 July 2021, the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by its manager. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found that Mr Hibbert was neither an employee nor a worker of Moriox UK Ltd. On that basis, the claims for arrears of pay, notice pay and holiday all failed and were dismissed. The judgment also records that the Claimant reserved his position to pursue a breach of contract claim in the County Court as a self-employed contractor.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the Respondent, so the arrears of pay claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a notice pay claim, which failed because the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the holiday claim failed and was dismissed because the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the Respondent. | 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.
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.