Case 2306211/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Tina Euri Ltd T/a Moving Waves — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306211/2023
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 7 June 2024, Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer decided only the claimant's employment status for the purposes of her unfair dismissal and holiday pay complaints. The respondent's case was that Ms L Charles was a self-employed contractor engaged as a freelance marketing associate; the claimant's case was that she had been employed from 4 September 2017 until her effective date of termination on 7 July 2023.
The tribunal looked beyond the contractual wording and accepted that the respondent had prepared the documentation, including a contract describing the respondent as the client and the claimant as a freelance self-employed marketing associate. It found that the claimant did not run a marketing business on her own account, that there was an obligation on the respondent to provide work and on the claimant to do that work, that she was required to work 12 hours per week, and that the respondent exercised significant control and direction over her work.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was an employee of the respondent from 4 September 2017. It therefore found that she had standing to advance her unfair dismissal and holiday pay complaints. The judgment did not determine the merits of those complaints; it recorded that a further hearing would take place on 13 September 2024 to deal with the remaining issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was an employee from 4 September 2017 and had standing to pursue this complaint, but it did not decide the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was an employee from 4 September 2017 and had standing to pursue this complaint, but it did not decide the merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 230(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Carmichael v National Power Plc
- Airfix Footwear Ltd v Cope
- Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
- White and anr v Troutbeck SA
- National Midwifery Council v Somerville
- Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.