Case 3302755/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms S-J Wood, Litigation Consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302755/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by CVP on 10 March 2023 at Watford before Employment Judge George. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a litigation consultant. The tribunal recorded that the remote format was not objected to and that a face-to-face hearing was not practicable.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by the respondent under a contract of employment. On that basis, the claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and breach of contract/notice pay were found not well founded and were dismissed.
The judgment also records a separate finding that the claimant was a worker of the respondent within the meaning of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by the respondent under a contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed together with the unfair dismissal and breach of contract/notice pay claims as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim for breach of contract/notice pay and dismissed it as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(3)(b) 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.