Case 3203020/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Emma Richards v Restore Community Church and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3203020/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Emma Richards
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 May 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. In her response dated 29 June 2020, the claimant referred to implied contractual terms said to have been breached by both respondents by failing to acknowledge her disability and make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal held that those matters fell within its jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal struck out the claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract against Reinart van Zyl and the separate claim for breach of duty of care against him. It said that, under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, it does not have jurisdiction over complaints of breach of contract against a named individual, only against the employer.
The remaining claims were unaffected by the strike out decision and were listed to proceed to a final hearing on 27 to 29 January 2021. The tribunal also ordered that the matters relied upon in paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Ground of Complaint be re-labelled as complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The two case numbers, 3203020/2019 and 3203021/2019, were to be consolidated and heard together.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract against the Second Respondent, Reinart van Zyl, because it had no jurisdiction to hear breach of contract complaints against a named individual. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim for breach of duty of care against the Second Respondent because it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
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.