Ms K Stefancik v HopeFull (SCIO) and 1 other — 2025

At a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Joffe, the tribunal considered whether Ms K Stefancik was employed by HopeFull (SCIO) or Mr T Hughes for Equality Act purposes, whether it had territorial jurisdiction, and whether time should be extended under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that she was not at material times employed by either respondent within the meaning of the Equality Act and that it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the claims, so the claims were dismissed.

The tribunal found that the claimant volunteered with the Scottish charity in Ukraine from February to September 2023. It accepted that she was given the volunteer form, later the safeguarding policy and waiver, accommodation and food, and that she worked alongside other volunteers on the charity's activities, but it found that these arrangements did not create a contract of employment or any contract personally to do work in return for remuneration. The tribunal treated the accommodation and food as support enabling the volunteering rather than remuneration, and it found that the claimant could stop volunteering without notice and that the respondents had no enforceable contractual remedy if she did so.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that an alleged promise of a £400 monthly stipend changed the position. It found the claimant's evidence on that point vague and lacking in detail, noted that Mr Fisher had not discussed any such proposal with the trustees or Mr Hughes, and was not satisfied that a stipend had been promised on any particular date before the charity relationship ended. The safeguarding policy and waiver did not materially alter the relationship.

On territorial jurisdiction, the tribunal held that there was not a sufficient connection with Great Britain or British employment law. It noted that the work was carried out in Ukraine, day-to-day management was done there, the claimant travelled from the United States rather than being recruited in Britain, and the fact that the charity was Scottish and regulated by OSCR was not enough on its own. The tribunal did not go on to decide the limitation issue because the status and jurisdiction findings disposed of the case, and it noted that there would have been no purpose in considering the amendment application.