Case 2600989/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Fearn and others Respondents 1. South Derbyshire District Council 2. Novus Property Solutions Limited 3. Hi-Spec Facilities Services Limited v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600989/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms L Fearn and others Respondents 1. South Derbyshire District Council 2. Novus Property Solutions Limited 3. Hi-Spec Facilities Services Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone at Nottingham on 31 July 2019. The tribunal considered an application to strike out the claimants' claims on the basis of unreasonable conduct.
The tribunal decided that the claimants' claims would not be struck out for unreasonable conduct. As a result, the claims were allowed to continue.
The case remained listed for a further preliminary hearing on 24 and 25 October 2019 to determine the issue of employee/worker status. The tribunal also directed that, once the responses of the second and third respondents were received, the file should be referred to an Employment Judge to consider whether any further case management was required in relation to that preliminary hearing.
No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal refused the respondents' application to strike out the claimants' claims for unreasonable conduct. The case remained listed for a preliminary hearing on 24 and 25 October 2019 to determine employee/worker status. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.