Case 2302092/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Gould v The members of The 77 Club — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302092/2024
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Gould
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the correct respondent was agreed to be the individual members of The 77 Club. It found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondents, so it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and those complaints were dismissed.
The claimant also claimed that, if she was a worker, she should have been paid during her suspension. The tribunal found that complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. By consent, the claimant was awarded holiday pay of £1,831.25 to be paid by the respondents.
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 and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim that, if the claimant was a worker, she should have been paid during suspension; it was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that by consent the claimant is awarded holiday pay of £1,831.25. | Settled | — | £1,831 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,831
- across all upheld claims
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.