Case 2600394/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Vickerage v T15 International Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600394/2022
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Vickerage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ayre sitting alone held that Ms Vickerage was not an employee of T15 International Limited within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not employed by the respondent within the meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal also found that she was not a worker of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the age discrimination claim was held to be out of time, and the claim for failure to provide itemised pay slips was also out of time. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was presented in time, but the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it because the claimant was not an employee or worker. The judgment records that all claims therefore failed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them, and the respondent's application for a preparation time order was refused.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was found to be out of time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide itemised pay slips was found to be out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Although this claim was presented in time, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
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.