Case 2303330/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms X. Horne v Trinity College London — 2021

Case reference: 2303330/2020
Decision date: 15 December 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smith Date
Venue: London South

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms X. Horne

Respondent

Trinity College London

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that Ms Horne was not an employee of Trinity College London for the purposes of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 while working as either a panel member or a lead senior examiner. On that basis, her complaints of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal were dismissed.

The tribunal also found that she was a worker within section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010 in her role as panel member, but not in her role as lead senior examiner. The judgment records no monetary award, and the written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.

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 within section 230(1) ERA 1996 while working as either a panel member or a lead senior examiner, so her unfair dismissal complaint, including automatic unfair dismissal, was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996 while working as either a panel member or a lead senior examiner, so her constructive dismissal complaint was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.