Case 3301626/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v T.H.E. Equine Edge Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301626/2023
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Suzanne Lines brought complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay against T.H.E. Equine Edge Limited. The Employment Judge found that she was not an “employee”, and not a “worker”, of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints. Each of the claims was therefore dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary remedy, and no substantive liability findings were made beyond the jurisdictional ruling.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a worker within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.