Case 2304560/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Kevin McCahill v David Rundel and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2304560/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Kevin McCahill
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear claims against the First Respondent. The claims against the First Respondent were therefore struck out because the Claimant had no reasonable prospects of success.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the Second Respondent, but was instead a self-employed consultant. On that basis, the claims of unlawful deduction of wages, age discrimination and whistleblowing detriment against the Second Respondent were struck out; the whistleblowing detriment claims were also struck out because they would have had no reasonable prospects of success in any event.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that claims against the First Respondent were struck out for lack of territorial jurisdiction, and that the unlawful deduction of wages claim against the Second Respondent was struck out because the Claimant was not an employee or worker. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that claims against the First Respondent were struck out for lack of territorial jurisdiction, and that the age discrimination claim against the Second Respondent was struck out because the Claimant was not an employee or worker. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the whistleblowing detriment claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success in any event, and would have been struck out against both respondents regardless of jurisdiction or employment status. | Struck out | — | — |
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.