Case 2502644/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J-H Thomas v Naio Nails (Distribution) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502644/2023
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Middlesborough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J-H Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on employment status. The tribunal found that Ms J-H Thomas was not an employee of Naio Nails (Distribution) Limited at the relevant time. On that basis, the complaints of automatically unfair dismissal under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under s93 Employment Rights Act 1996, were dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine them.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was a worker of the respondent at the relevant time. It recorded that the complaints of dismissal amounting to pregnancy discrimination under s18 Equality Act 2010, failure to provide a written statement under s11(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, failure to provide a written pay statement under s11(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, and unauthorised deduction from wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 would therefore proceed. No remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal brought under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999; dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under s93 Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time and therefore lacked 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.