Case 2400149/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Alder v Quality Protects Children Ltd (Lawrence House School) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400149/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Liverpool via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Alder
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sharkett, sitting alone at Liverpool via CVP on 20 October 2020, dealt with threshold issues in Mr P Alder's claim against Quality Protects Children Ltd (Lawrence House School). The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but the written judgment also states that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine his claim of unfair dismissal or right to a statutory redundancy payment.
The only final claim outcome recorded in the extracted text is the breach of contract claim for notice pay. That claim was found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment text does not record a merits decision on unfair dismissal or statutory redundancy payment beyond the jurisdiction and employment-status findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The judgment finds the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time under s230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, but the extracted text does not record a final merits outcome on the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claimant's right to a statutory redundancy payment, but the extracted text does not record a final entitlement decision. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s230(1) 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.