Case 2410851/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hornby v The Estate of Norman McKittrick t/a Naylors Garage and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410851/2023
- Decision date
- 27 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Hornby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Liverpool by CVP on 29 to 30 August 2024 before Employment Judge Ainscough. The judgment records that Mr G Hornby was an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the first respondent, The Estate of Norman McKittrick t/a Naylors Garage, was his employer.
The tribunal held that the second respondent, Paul McKittrick, was not the claimant’s employer and dismissed him from the proceedings. The claims were to continue against the first respondent.
No substantive determination of the unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims appears in the extracted judgment. The document states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time, so this record captures only the preliminary employment and party-status findings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment does not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. It records only that the claimant was an employee, the first respondent was the employer, and that the claim would continue against the first respondent. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment does not determine the breach of contract claim on its merits. It records only that the claimant was an employee, the first respondent was the employer, and that the claim would continue against the first respondent. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 of the 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.