Case 2307925/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307925/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South Employment Tribunal on 28 and 29 April 2022, Employment Judge Hyams-Parish, sitting alone, heard Mr J Gonsalves's claims against VSO, Voluntary Services Overseas. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear any of the claims because Mr Gonsalves was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent.
As a result, the claims for breach of contract, public interest disclosure or whistleblowing, race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages were all dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | 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.