Case 2407501/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Howitt v Blackpool Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407501/2021
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Howitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr H Howitt had been a foster carer for Blackpool Council from August 2012 and was registered on 26 March 2013. He said he was an employee of the respondent, entitled to employee rights and benefits, and that he had been unfairly dismissed. He also referred to a freedom of speech complaint, but the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The claimant had also ticked religion or belief discrimination on the ET1, but he confirmed this was accidental and did not pursue such a claim. The tribunal therefore did not determine any discrimination allegation. The respondent's case was that the claimant was not an employee or worker, and counsel relied on W v Essex County Council [1998] 3 All ER 111 as authority that foster carers are not employees or workers.
Employment Judge Sharkett said the Fostering Services Regulations 2002 governed the relationship, that the claimant was not self-employed in the ordinary sense because the statutory scheme applied, and that there was no power to negotiate the terms under which he worked. The judge held there was no cogent evidence to depart from W v Essex County Council, which bound the tribunal.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospects of success and struck them out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant said he was an employee and had been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal struck the claims out on the basis that foster carers are not employees or workers, relying on W v Essex County Council [1998] 3 All ER 111. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- W v Essex County Council [1998] 3 All ER 111
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.