Case 2413659/2018 · Employment Tribunal

did not attend v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 2413659/2018
Decision date: 5 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Warren Signed

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

did not attend

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing on 24 February 2020 before Employment Judge Warren. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Ms L Gould, Counsel.

The tribunal dismissed all claims because they had no reasonable prospects of success. Its central finding was that the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee of the respondent. That finding disposed of the employment-status dependent claims before any full hearing of the merits.

The written judgment records that all claims were dismissed. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Dismissed at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospects of success; the tribunal held the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee of the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospects of success; the tribunal held the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee of the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospects of success; the tribunal held the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee of the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	Dismissed at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospects of success; the tribunal held the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee of the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.