Case 2306129/2020 · Employment Tribunal
M Wilmot v V Medina — 2021
- Case reference
- 2306129/2020
- Decision date
- 14 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Wilmot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge L Burge heard the case at London South by CVP on 8 July 2021, with both parties appearing in person. The tribunal found that M Wilmot was a self-employed contractor and not an employee of V Medina.
Because the claimant was not an employee, the claims for notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments described as insurance and tax all failed. The judgment records that those claims were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was claimed. The tribunal found the claimant was a self-employed contractor and not an employee, so this claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was claimed. The tribunal found the claimant was a self-employed contractor and not an employee, so this claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay were claimed. The tribunal found the claimant was a self-employed contractor and not an employee, so this claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Other payments, described as insurance and tax, were claimed. The tribunal found the claimant was a self-employed contractor and not an employee, so this claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.