Mr Z Gilpin v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited — 2023

The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, race discrimination, redundancy payment, notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments. The tribunal also noted correspondence that raised the possibility of a whistleblowing detriment or automatic unfair dismissal claim. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and indicated he would not participate.

The respondent's case was that the claimant had never been its employee or worker and that its dealings with him arose from complaints he made about financial matters. The tribunal accepted evidence that no record existed of the claimant being employed by, or working for, the respondent. It found that the ET1 and later emails did not identify a contract of employment or other contract requiring the claimant personally to do work for the respondent.

The tribunal concluded that providing personal data to an organisation, pursuing a complaint, corresponding with the respondent or asserting that whistleblowers should be paid did not create an employment or worker relationship. It found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing the status needed for the tribunal to have jurisdiction over the claims, and struck out all claims.