Case 2300434/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Smith v Royal Borough of Greenwich — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300434/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined at a public preliminary hearing that Mrs Smith was a worker of the Royal Borough of Greenwich at the relevant time, but was not an employee. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and notice pay complaints because it did not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The Tribunal also dismissed the holiday pay complaint and the complaint about other payments relating to BT telephone contract expenses. It found those complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for them to be presented in time. The judgment records that the claimant had raised the substance of the holiday pay and expenses issues in correspondence in 2020 and had been able to research employment status and potential next steps before presenting the claim in January 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint for notice pay and dismissed it because the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim concerned unpaid expenses for a BT telephone contract between September 2018 and September 2019. It was dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal also observed there was no clear evidential basis for the contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.21(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7(a) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- reasonably practicable
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.