Case 3310847/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gijare v Ent Serv UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310847/2023
- Decision date
- 20 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gijare
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 May and 21 June 2024, Employment Judge Emery found that Mr S Gijare was not an employee of Ent Serv UK Limited at the relevant time. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.
The tribunal also found that Mr Gijare was a contract worker within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so his race discrimination claim could proceed. Ent Serv UK Limited's applications to strike out the race discrimination claim, or alternatively for a deposit order, were dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent at the relevant time, so it lacked jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was a contract worker within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the race discrimination claim could proceed. The respondent's applications to strike out the race discrimination claim or require a deposit were dismissed. This was a preliminary ruling only and not a merits decision on the discrimination claim. | Other | Race | — |
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.