Case 3202333/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Hayes v Railscape Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202333/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Hayes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform on 1 February 2021 before Employment Judge Moor. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was remote and that a face-to-face hearing was not required because the relevant matters could be determined remotely.
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that Mrs J Hayes was not an employee or worker of Railscape Limited within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the complaint for unlawful deduction of wages was not well-founded. For the same reason, the accrued but untaken holiday pay claim failed because she was not a worker within the meaning of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The breach of contract claim also failed because Mrs J Hayes was not an employee of the respondent and the tribunal found the claim was not outstanding or arising on the termination of a contract of employment. In addition, the tribunal stated that it did not have power to hear the unlawful deduction, holiday pay and breach of contract complaints because they were not brought in time when it was reasonably practicable to do so.
No remedy was awarded because every claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The accrued but untaken holiday pay claim failed because the claimant was not a worker of the respondent within the meaning of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal also held it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and the claim was therefore not outstanding or arising on the termination of a contract of employment. The tribunal also held it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also said the complaint was not brought in time when it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- employee or worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- worker within the meaning of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- reasonably practicable to do so
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.