Case 3201663/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Rushton v Planet Leasing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201663/2023
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Rushton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether, from April 2022 to May 2023, the claimant was an employee, worker, or contract worker of the respondent. The claimant had previously been employed by the respondent, but resigned and then operated through KLMW Limited, which entered into a franchise agreement with the respondent.
The tribunal found that the franchise agreement formalised a commercial relationship between the respondent and KLMW. It found that the claimant was not required to provide personal service to the respondent, that the respondent's control was directed at KLMW to protect its brand, and that there was no mutuality of obligation between the claimant and the respondent.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not an employee or worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996, was not an employee under the Equality Act 2010, and was not a contract worker under section 41 Equality Act 2010. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims, and all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as arrears of pay. It was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have the required employment or worker status and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee under section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 or a contract worker under section 41 Equality Act 2010, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee under section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 or a contract worker under section 41 Equality Act 2010, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 41 Equality Act 2010
- Harrods
- Leeds
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.