Case 3302994/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr S Aathavan, Director — 2024

Case reference: 3302994/2023
Decision date: 10 October 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge French Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr S Aathavan, Director

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that she did not have two years' qualifying service and was not asserting a statutory right within section 104(4) ERA 1996 so as to make the dismissal automatically unfair under section 108 ERA 1996.

The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was in employment for Equality Act 2010 purposes because, under section 83(2)(a), she was working under a contract personally to do work. On that basis, the race discrimination complaints were allowed to proceed. This judgment did not determine the merits of those complaints or record any monetary remedy.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230(1) ERA 1996, did not have two years' qualifying service, and was not asserting a statutory right within section 104(4) ERA 1996 so as to make the dismissal automatically unfair under section 108 ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal held that the claimant was in employment within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 under section 83(2)(a), because she was working under a contract personally to do work, and said that the race discrimination complaints therefore proceed. The merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.