Case 2402767/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K K Malhi v SCS Homecare Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402767/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K K Malhi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 9 May 2025, Employment Judge M Butler decided that Mrs K K Malhi was not employed by SCS Homecare Ltd. The tribunal accepted that she had been sponsored as a skilled worker, with a contractual start date of 25 November 2022, and that DBS, training and induction arrangements were made in early November 2022.
The tribunal found that on 3 November 2022 the claimant attended an induction, but did not start work under a contract of employment. It accepted evidence that she was observing tasks and being introduced to service-user information, rather than carrying out paid work, and that she was not yet DBS-cleared or training-complete. The tribunal held that the induction was collateral to any employment contract.
The tribunal also found that, during the induction, the claimant said she did not want to do caring and left, and that she never returned to work for the respondent. It relied on later messages about returning a uniform or paying £35, the claimant’s January and February 2023 messages asking to start work, the absence of rotas, and the absence of any complaint that she had not been paid. All claims were dismissed. The tribunal added that, if it were wrong on employment status, it would have found only a one-day employment ending when the claimant resigned and the respondent accepted that resignation.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant had not been employed and had retracted acceptance before the job began. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed after the tribunal found there was no employment relationship and the induction was collateral to any contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed with the other claims on employment-status grounds; the tribunal made no separate merits finding on pregnancy or maternity. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant never commenced employment and had not worked under a contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant never commenced employment and had not worked under a contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Smith v The International Development Co plc
- General of the Salvation Army v Dewsbury
- Koenig v The Mind Gym Ltd
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.