Case 2207969/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Harvey v Ethica Care Services Limited and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2207969/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Panel members
- Mr P Alleyne, Mr F Benson
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr S Harvey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Mr Harvey was a worker of Ethica Care Services Limited at all material times under sections 43K and 230(3)(b) ERA 1996, but not an employee, and that he was neither a worker nor an employee of Maxipay Limited. Those status findings framed the remaining ERA and Working Time Regulations complaints.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal found Mr Harvey made protected disclosures to Ethica Care Services Limited and Mr A Kleanthous. It upheld the complaints that he was made to take leave from 3 February 2023, that on 9 February 2023 Mr Kleanthous asked whose side he was on and stated or clearly inferred that he would have his back if he was on Ethica's side, and that Ethica failed to provide him with work between 3 and 23 February 2023. The tribunal held these were detriments on the ground that he had made protected disclosures, contrary to section 47B ERA 1996.
The complaint that Mr S Bailey told Mr Harvey he was not entitled to bring a grievance was dismissed upon Mr Harvey's withdrawal, and the tribunal found Mr Bailey was not an agent of Ethica Care Services Limited for the purposes of section 47(1A)(b) ERA 1996. A separate complaint under section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996, alleging detriment for raising health and safety concerns, was dismissed. All other complaints against the first and third respondents were dismissed, and all complaints against the second and fourth respondents were dismissed.
On working time, the tribunal upheld the complaints that Ethica breached Mr Harvey's rights to daily rest under regulations 10 and 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 on the specified dates in October, November and December 2022, and breached his weekly rest rights during the periods 21 October to 13 November 2022 and 26 November to 11 December 2022. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for these complaints to be brought within the primary limitation period and that they were brought within a reasonable period thereafter under regulation 30(2)(b) WTR 1998. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 upheld. The tribunal found Mr Harvey made protected disclosures to Ethica Care Services Limited and Mr A Kleanthous and that detriments included being made to take leave from 3 February 2023, being asked on 9 February 2023 whose side he was on with an implied assurance of support if he was on Ethica's side, and not being provided with work between 3 and 23 February 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that Mr S Bailey told Mr Harvey he was not entitled to bring a grievance. The judgment records this complaint as dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal. The tribunal also found Mr Bailey was not an agent of Ethica Care Services Limited for the purposes of section 47(1A)(b) ERA 1996. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996 that Mr Harvey suffered a detriment for raising health and safety concerns. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Working Time Regulations 1998 claim upheld. The tribunal found breaches of daily rest rights on 7-10, 13, 16, 21-31 October, 1-12, 17, 26-30 November, and 1-10, 19-25 December 2022, and weekly rest rights during 21 October-13 November 2022 and 26 November-11 December 2022. It also found it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaints within the primary limitation period and that they were brought within a reasonable period thereafter under regulation 30(2)(b). | Upheld |
Legal tests applied
7 references- sections 43K and 230(3)(b) ERA 1996
- section 230(3)(a) ERA 1996
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 47(1A)(b) ERA 1996
- section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996
- regulations 10 and 11 WTR 1998
- regulation 30(2)(b) WTR 1998
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.