Case 2602250/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr F Ali v Skin Medics UK and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602250/2022
- Decision date
- 17 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr F Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Watford on 15 August 2023, Employment Judge Dick amended the name of the second respondent to Skin Medics Herts Ltd trading as Skin Medics UK and dismissed the claims against the first respondent because there was no such legal entity as Skin Medics UK. The tribunal then found that Dr F Ali was not an employee of the second respondent within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but was a worker within section 230(3).
On that employment-status finding, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims because the claimant was not an employee. The written record states that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record does not record any separate merits finding on the dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on the basis that the claimant was not an employee. The decision does not record any contractual award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 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.