Case 2411554/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kashem v Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411554/2023
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kashem
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool by CVP on 14-16 July 2025 before Employment Judge Ainscough sitting alone. The tribunal found that Mr Kashem was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the claim for unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was unsuccessful and dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the claims for automatic unfair dismissal under sections 101A, 103A and 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed. The judgment records that the remaining claims would continue, so this decision disposed only of the dismissal-based claims listed above.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230 ERA 1996
- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 101A ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 104 ERA 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.