Case 3300105/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300105/2022
- Decision date
- 10 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss S Cassidy, worked for the respondent through Chancegate Limited and Clinical Professionals Limited before being taken on directly by Astrazeneca UK Limited in July 2020. The tribunal found that the contractual documents and the parties' dealings reflected a genuine tripartite arrangement under which the claimant operated as an independent contractor before that date, and it did not imply a contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent for the earlier period.
Applying James v Greenwich London Borough Council, the tribunal held that there was insufficient justification to imply a contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent. It accepted that the claimant was employed only from July 2020, and on the dismissal date of 7 December 2021 she did not have the required two years' continuous service. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal also noted that, if there was a breach of contract claim, it too was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said that if there was a breach of contract claim, it was also dismissed; it stated such a claim could not be sustained in isolation of the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- James v Greenwich London Borough Council
- implied contract principles
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.