Case 2221314/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Benjamin v Soho Theatre Company Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2221314/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Reed
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Benjamin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, Soho Theatre Company accepted that Mr Benjamin had CPTSD, anxiety and depression amounting to disability under the Equality Act 2010. It also accepted knowledge of disability from 18 March 2024, and accepted that while he was engaged by the theatre he was an employee for Equality Act purposes and a worker for Employment Rights Act purposes.
The tribunal held that Mr Benjamin was not employed under a contract of employment for Employment Rights Act purposes. Although factors including subordination and control pointed towards employment, the tribunal found they were outweighed by the limited mutuality of obligation in what it characterised as a true zero-hour or casual relationship.
The tribunal found that the contractual relationship ended on 2 October 2023, when Mr Benjamin was told his future shifts were cancelled and he would not be offered further work. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because he was not an employee, and the tribunal recorded that claims relating to dismissal were brought outside the statutory deadline, while leaving any extension of time issue for another hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held at the preliminary hearing that Mr Benjamin was not an employee for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary judgment recorded that Soho Theatre Company accepted Mr Benjamin had CPTSD, anxiety and depression amounting to disability under the Equality Act 2010, and that he was an employee for Equality Act purposes. The visible text does not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal stated that the time limit issue also applied to a claim under regulation 4 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, but that whether time should be extended was not before the tribunal at the preliminary hearing and no conclusion was reached on that issue. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- multiple test
- mutuality of obligation
- Professional Game Match Officials Ltd
- St Ives Plymouth Ltd v Haggerty UKEAT/0107/08
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.