Case 2302094/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Graysmark v Moving On Care Management Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302094/2018
- Decision date
- 14 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Graysmark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing in Ashford on 14 March 2019, Employment Judge Corrigan, sitting alone, decided that Mr M Graysmark was not an employee of Moving On Care Management Ltd, but was a worker. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by a CAB advisor and the respondent by a solicitor.
Because the tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The claim for failure to provide written particulars was also dismissed for the same reason. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
The tribunal recorded that the claim for holiday pay proceeds. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for failure to provide written particulars, which was dismissed. The extracted text does not specify a more precise taxonomy category. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.