Case 2502501/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Anwer v Eagle Hill Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2502501/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Anwer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at North Shields on 6 November 2019, before Employment Judge Aspden, dismissed Miss A Anwer's claims for damages for breach of contract and for unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records that both parties were not in attendance.
The reason given for dismissal was jurisdictional and status-based. The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee for the purposes of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 nor a worker within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal had no basis to uphold either claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee for the purposes of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claimant was found not to be a worker within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- 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.