Case 2404402/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J W Johnson v Key Care and Support Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2404402/2018
- Decision date
- 3 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J W Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr J W Johnson was not an employee within the meaning of s.230(1) ERA 1996. On that basis it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint, and that complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal reached a different jurisdictional conclusion on the race discrimination complaint. It found that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of s.83(2) Equality Act 2010 when carrying out assignments, so the tribunal did have jurisdiction to consider the race discrimination claim. That claim was not finally determined at this hearing and was listed to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was an employee within s.83(2) Equality Act 2010 when carrying out assignments, so it had jurisdiction to consider the race discrimination complaint and the matter was to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.83(2) Equality Act 2010
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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.