Case 3305451/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E. Stenson, counsel For the v Mr L. Jegede, solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305451/2022
- Decision date
- 20 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E. Stenson, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 19 and 20 April 2023, Employment Judge McNeill KC held that Ms C Ramsay was not an employee of Enfield Mencap within the meaning of section 230 of the ERA at the material times. On that basis the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim, and that claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the claimant had complied with the ACAS early conciliation requirements in relation to her second claim, case number 3307112/2002, so that claim was brought in time and proceeded together with the first claim. The respondent did not persuade the tribunal that the claimant’s detriment and holiday pay claims had no or little reasonable prospect of success.
Those claims were therefore not struck out and were listed to proceed to a full merits hearing. The tribunal made no deposit order and refused the claimant’s application for the costs of the preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal held the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within section 230 ERA 1996 at the material times, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The detriment claim was not struck out at the preliminary hearing because the respondent did not persuade the tribunal that it had no or little reasonable prospect of success; it was allowed to proceed to a full hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was not struck out at the preliminary hearing because the respondent did not persuade the tribunal that it had no or little reasonable prospect of success; it was allowed to proceed to a full hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 230 ERA 1996
- ACAS early conciliation requirements
- no or little reasonable prospect of success
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.