Case 2601310/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Ellis v For Under Fives Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601310/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Ellis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Nottingham, heard by Employment Judge Brewer on 7 December 2020, found that Ms A Ellis was not an employee of For Under Fives Limited. On that basis, the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and notice pay were dismissed.
The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's race discrimination claim and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record states that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days, so no fuller reasoning appears in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.