Case 2410315/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kenneth Chima v Wine and Beer Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410315/2022
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kenneth Chima
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 29 and 30 November 2023, Employment Judge McDonald sat alone and heard the case between Mr Kenneth Chima, who appeared in person, and Wine and Beer Company Limited, represented by Mr L Fakunle. The tribunal held that Mr Chima was not an employee or a worker of the respondent at the relevant time.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to determine the claimant's claims and dismissed them all. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The written reasons do not identify this claim separately; it was dismissed on the same jurisdictional basis as the rest of the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.