Case 3306629/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Dallimore v AT Transport Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306629/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Dallimore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue judgment heard by Employment Judge Tynan sitting alone on 14 October 2025. The tribunal determined that throughout the period 1 April 2022 to 3 May 2024 the claimant was an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal specifically found that between August and December 2022 the claimant was not self-employed, so her continuous employment with the respondent was not broken.
On that basis, the tribunal found that at the claimant's effective date of termination she had been continuously employed for more than two years. The result was that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine her unfair dismissal claim. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee throughout 1 April 2022 to 3 May 2024, that the August to December 2022 period did not break continuity because she was not self-employed, and that she had more than two years' continuous employment so the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine her unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230(1) 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.