Case 2404390/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Singh v 360 Fitness Performance Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404390/2023
- Decision date
- 31 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 16 August 2023, Employment Judge Cookson sat alone. By consent, the tribunal substituted 360 Fitness Performance Limited as the respondent under Rule 34. The only substantive issue determined in this record was employment status.
The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee for the purposes of s230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, a statutory redundancy payment and notice pay could proceed to final hearing. No final merits findings or monetary awards were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee for the purposes of s230(1) ERA 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim could proceed to a final hearing; no merits determination was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee for the purposes of s230(1) ERA 1996, so the statutory redundancy payment claim could proceed to a final hearing; no merits determination was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This entry reflects the notice pay claim mentioned in the judgment. The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee for the purposes of s230(1) ERA 1996, so the notice pay claim could proceed to a final hearing; no merits determination was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
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.