Case 2303078/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ignas Maskelis v Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303078/2022
- Decision date
- 22 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ignas Maskelis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge D Wright sitting alone on 22 March 2023. The tribunal amended the respondent's name from "Special Care Dental Surgery" to "Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust".
The tribunal found that Mr Ignas Maskelis was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, his complaint of unfair dismissal was held not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the claim for redundancy pay was not well founded and was dismissed. The judgment records that there were no remaining claims against the respondent in these proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.