Case 3311005/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Patel (nee Mistry) v Eros International Ltd (In Administration) and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311005/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms B Patel (nee Mistry)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on a preliminary issue heard at Watford by CVP on 4 October 2023 before Employment Judge Bansal sitting alone. The Claimant appeared in person. The Second and Third Respondents were represented by Mr Zameer Nazarali.
The tribunal held that Ms B Patel (nee Mistry) was neither an employee nor a worker of the Second or Third Respondent for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period 8 December 1997 to 30 April 2022. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claims against the Second and Third Respondents.
No remedy was awarded in this judgment. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the Second or Third Respondent for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 during the period 8 December 1997 to 30 April 2022, and the claims against those respondents were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.