Case 3301910/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bridgewater (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301910/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Bridgewater (lay representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined preliminary issues about the claimant's employment status and, if necessary, limitation. It was not in dispute that the claimant was a worker, but the claimant needed to establish employee status in order to pursue his unfair dismissal complaint.
Having considered the contract and the surrounding factors, the tribunal found that the claimant was a worker and not an employee within the meaning of s230 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
The tribunal also addressed limitation in the alternative. It found that, even if the claimant had been an employee, the claim was presented four days late after ACAS early conciliation was taken into account, and there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant described the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal, but the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because he was found to be a worker and not an employee within s230 ERA 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The tribunal also found in the alternative that the claim would have been out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
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.