Case 3303419/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Shini v David Lloyd Leisure Ltd and others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303419/2020
- Decision date
- 18 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on employment status. The claimant, a tennis coach, brought claims including unfair dismissal, protected disclosure complaints, race and religion or belief harassment and discrimination, victimisation, and breach of contract. The tribunal applied the employee/worker authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, Bates van Winkelhof, Uber and Pimlico Plumbers, to decide whether it had jurisdiction under ERA 1996 section 230 and EqA 2010 section 83.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | protected disclosure detriment | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | harassment related to race | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | harassment related to religion or belief | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | direct discrimination because of race | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | direct discrimination because of religion or belief | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co LLP
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Express & Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton
- UK Mail v Creasey
- MacFarlane v Glasgow City Council
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.83 EqA 2010
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.