Case 2301261/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Thomas Hutchings v Mr Finbarr O’Connell and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301261/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje REPRESENTATION
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Thomas Hutchings
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on a preliminary issue only. The tribunal found that, at the relevant time, Mr Thomas Hutchings was not an employee of any of the First, Second or Third Respondents within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, the automatic unfair dismissal complaint, and the wrongful dismissal complaint were struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The tribunal also dealt with the whistleblowing detriment complaint as a limitation issue. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for that complaint to have been brought before 23 January 2025. Because the complaint was submitted on 23 January 2025, the tribunal held that it was out of time and struck it out.
The judgment records that the final merits hearing listed to begin on 22 September 2025 would still proceed, with updated case management orders to follow separately. No monetary remedy was awarded in this preliminary decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that, at the relevant time, the claimant was not an employee of any of the First, Second or Third Respondents within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal referred to the automatic unfair dismissal complaint as already struck out because the claimant was not an employee within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal complaint was struck out because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction after finding the claimant was not an employee within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the whistleblowing detriment complaint before 23 January 2025. As it was submitted on 23 January 2025, the complaint was brought out of time and was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- 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.