Case 3309376/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Stephens, Counsel For v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3309376/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. Stephens, Counsel For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether the Claimant was employed by the Respondent under a contract of employment or, if not, whether she was a worker. The Claimant had brought claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears of pay.
The Tribunal found that there was no written or other contract between the Claimant and the Respondent. It found that the Claimant provided services to Kiran Sehgal as a nanny and for associated household tasks, that her instructions came from Kiran Sehgal, and that the Respondent's involvement was limited to facilitating payment through payroll.
Having found that there was no contract with the Respondent and no employee or worker status, the Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not entitled to bring the claims against the Respondent. All claims were dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with them.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the Respondent and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the Respondent and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a notice pay claim. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the Respondent and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the Respondent and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as an arrears of pay claim. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the Respondent and therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- mutuality of obligation
- control
- irreducible minimum factors
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.