Case 3310718/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Beverley v Care Assist Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310718/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr K Chester, Ms L Jaffe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Beverley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Beverley worked for Care Assist Ltd from 2015 as a casual relief mental health support worker at Whitehall Road. The tribunal accepted that the written paperwork used employment language and contained many features consistent with employment, but held that the reality of the relationship lacked the mutuality of obligation needed for a contract of employment because the respondent was not obliged to offer work and the claimant was not obliged to accept it. It therefore dismissed both the automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal complaints on the basis that she was not an employee within the meaning of ERA 1996.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal accepted that the claimant made a protected disclosure in early August 2021 about the Team Leader's use of her own asthma medication on a service user and the related incident handling. It rejected the later complaint email of 28 December 2021 as a protected disclosure. The tribunal found that the claimant was initially taken off shifts after the events of 5 January 2022 because of the investigation into those events, and later because there was no Whitehall Road work available, not because of the August disclosure. It also found that the claimant was not told to leave the premises on 5 January 2022; she misread what Mrs Faulkner said.
The claimant's race discrimination and race harassment claims also failed. The tribunal found that the treatment complained of, including the suspension-like removal from Whitehall Road and the later P45, was not because of race. It rejected the Team Leader as a valid comparator because there were material differences, including her employment status and the different circumstances of the incident. The harassment allegations about a short-notice situational supervision, raised voices in the 5 January argument, and Mrs Faulkner staring in silence when accused of racism were found not to be related to race and not to meet the statutory test.
The claimant's holiday pay and arrears of pay complaints were withdrawn in closing submissions and dismissed on that basis. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay claim withdrawn during closing submissions and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaint under s.47B ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the claimant made a protected disclosure in early August 2021 about the 6 August 2021 incident, but held that the decision not to allow her to work at Whitehall Road was not made on that ground. It also found that she was not told to leave the premises on 5 January 2022; she misinterpreted what Mrs Faulkner said. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of ERA, that the P45 sent on 1 August 2022 did not objectively amount to a dismissal, and that in any event the decision maker did not know about the August 2021 disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of ERA and that the sending of the P45 did not amount to a dismissal, so the fairness issues did not arise. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint covering the claimant being prevented from working at Whitehall Road and the sending of the P45. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race, held that the Team Leader was not a true comparator, and found the relevant decisions were not race-related. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- Uber/Autoclenz/Ter-Berg principle
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Igen / Madarassy burden of proof
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes
- Mervyn v BW Controls Ltd
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.