Case 3303979/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Helen Johns v Dawn Bibby Productions Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303979/2022
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Helen Johns
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing decided whether the claimant was an employee or worker of either or both respondents under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that she was not an employee, noting among other matters that she had described herself as self-employed, understood the distinction between employment and self-employment, and valued the flexibility of that arrangement.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a worker. It recorded that she was recruited for her individual experience and expertise, usually provided her services personally, was integrated into the respondents' business, and that the respondents exercised overall control over tasks and priorities.
As a result, the constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay, and Furlough Pay claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The arrears of holiday pay, pension contributions, and section 1 ERA statement claims were permitted to proceed to hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Furlough Pay claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The arrears of holiday pay claim was allowed to proceed to hearing; no final merits outcome was decided in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was found to be a worker but not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The pension contributions claim was allowed to proceed to hearing; no final merits outcome was decided in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide a section 1 ERA statement of terms and conditions was allowed to proceed to hearing; no final merits outcome was decided in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Autoclenz
- Westwood
- Catholic Child Welfare Society
- Byrne Brothers
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.