Case 3311681/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C. Page For the v Dr D. Crilly — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311681/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M. Hunt Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C. Page For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, an actor who performed at the Cambridge Shakespeare Festival in 2024 without payment, brought several complaints which all depended on her being a worker within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondents organised the Festival, which has run annually since 1988, and contended that the Claimant's participation was entirely voluntary. The Tribunal noted a previous Tribunal decision involving different actors at the 2022 Festival had reached the opposite conclusion, but found good reason to depart from it as it was not binding.
Employment Judge Hunt found that, although certain factors such as artistic direction, expected personal performance, rehearsal and performance attendance, and the scale of the Festival's approximately £250,000 budget could point toward a worker relationship, none of these factors individually or cumulatively outweighed the absence of any expectation of remuneration. The Judge concluded that the parties did not intend to create legal relations amounting to a contract for work or services, since such a contract requires the parties to have anticipated a wage, which was not the case here.
The Claimant accepted that all of her complaints depended on her being considered a worker. As the Tribunal found she was not a worker, the entirety of her claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the Claimant was found not to be a worker under s.230 ERA 1996, which was a prerequisite for the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the Claimant was found not to be a worker under s.230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the Claimant was found not to be a worker under s.230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 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.