Case 2304572/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. L. J. Gibb v Dolphin Computer Upgrades Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304572/2024
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. L. J. Gibb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hybrid hearing at London South Employment Tribunal on 1 and 2 July 2025, before Employment Judge Sudra sitting alone, the Tribunal considered Ms. L. J. Gibb's complaints against Dolphin Computer Upgrades Limited. The Claimant was represented by Mr. G. Patching and the Respondent by Ms. S. English.
The Tribunal found that Ms. Gibb was not an employee or a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's complaints.
The claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.