Case 2303090/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303090/2019
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered consolidated claims under case numbers 2303090/2019 and 2303996/2019. Employment Judge Morton Date held that Mr Hawthorne was not an employee of the first respondent for the purposes of s230 Employment Rights Act 1996 or s83 Equality Act 2010.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed his claims against both respondents. The extracted judgment does not contain any separate findings on liability, compensation, or remedy beyond the employment-status point, and no monetary award was made.
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 of the first respondent under s230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee under s83 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the claim. The extracted text does not restate the protected characteristic, but the case listing identifies the matter as disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s83 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.