Mr O Chiromo v Citibank NA and 1 other — 2024

The Claimant withdrew his claims against the Second Respondent and also withdrew his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal recorded that, where a claim is withdrawn, no further reasons are required. No monetary remedy was awarded in relation to the withdrawn matters.

The wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims were both dependent on the Claimant's employment status. The Employment Judge recorded that the Tribunal's jurisdiction for a breach of contract claim required the Claimant to be an employee, and that this had been carefully explained in lay terms, including the difference between worker and employee status. The Judge found that the Claimant was clear that he was not an employee, and on that basis dismissed those claims.

The Claimant also argued that the First Respondent's response should have been automatically rejected because it was not set out in the body of the ET3 form. The tribunal rejected that argument, finding that the response had been presented on an ET3 because the mandatory information was included and the full response was supplied by attachment. The Judge therefore held that the First Respondent had complied with the Tribunal Rules.

The reasons also record that an earlier hearing dealt with a time limit point in order to save time if the claim was out of time and to reduce the amount of preparation needed for the wages issue. This excerpt does not record a substantive determination on that point.