Case 2404002/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs D Orr v Brief Therapy Support Services Limited — 2018

Case reference: 2404002/2018
Decision date: 12 September 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Grundy REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs D Orr

Respondent

Brief Therapy Support Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary issue judgment heard at Manchester on 4 September 2018 before Employment Judge Grundy. The claimant, Mrs D Orr, brought claims against Brief Therapy Support Services Limited for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal decided only jurisdiction, not the merits of either claim.

The tribunal declared that Mrs Orr was not an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear her unfair dismissal claim. It also declared that she was contracted personally to do work within section 183(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, so the tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear a disability discrimination claim. The judgment states that this includes the manner of termination of the claimant's contract to provide counselling services.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held the claimant was not an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.	Other	—	—
Disability discrimination	Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held the claimant was contracted personally to do work under section 183(2)(a) Equality Act 2010, so it had jurisdiction to hear a disability discrimination claim, including the manner of termination of the counselling services contract.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.