Case 2407698/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Udah First v Splendid Care Limited t/a Intent Care Second Respondent: Springfield Park Care Home Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407698/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Udah First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in Manchester on 1 July 2024, Employment Judge M Butler determined only preliminary status issues for Miss D Udah’s claims against Splendid Care Limited t/a Intent Care and Springfield Park Care Home Limited. The tribunal held that she was not an employee of the first and/or second respondent within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, and not a worker of the second respondent within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that she was a worker of the first respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996.
On the Equality Act issues, the tribunal held that the claimant was an employee of the first respondent within s.83 Equality Act 2010 and a contract worker with the second respondent under s.41 Equality Act 2010. The written record contains no merits determination on the underlying discrimination or wages complaints and no monetary award. The judgment was dated 2 July 2024 and sent to the parties on 11 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This was a public preliminary hearing on status only. The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee of the first respondent within s.83 Equality Act 2010 and a contract worker with the second respondent under s.41 Equality Act 2010, but the written record does not determine the merits of any disability discrimination complaint. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | This was a public preliminary hearing on status only. The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee of the first respondent within s.83 Equality Act 2010 and a contract worker with the second respondent under s.41 Equality Act 2010, but the written record does not determine the merits of any race discrimination complaint. | Other | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was a public preliminary hearing on status only. The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of the first and/or second respondent within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, not a worker of the second respondent, and a worker of the first respondent. The written record does not determine the merits of any wages claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.41 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.
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.