Case 3312048/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Mr P Martin (1) Mrs E Martin (2) v Achieve Lifestyle v Mr P Martin and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312048/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Respondent: Mr P Martin (1) Mrs E Martin (2) v Achieve Lifestyle
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were swimming teachers who worked for the respondent. The respondent accepted that they were workers and employees in the extended sense for discrimination law, but disputed that they were employees for other purposes. The preliminary hearing was directed to determine their employment status.
The tribunal considered the written terms and how the swimming lessons operated in practice. It found that the claimants were employees when actually conducting classes and during Assignments, consistent with the written agreement and the practical arrangements for continuity of teaching.
The tribunal did not find an overarching contract of employment between Assignments because there was no obligation on the respondent to offer further Assignments and no obligation on the claimants to accept them. Issues such as continuity of service and eligibility to claim unfair dismissal were not finally determined.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal decided that the claimants were employees when actually working and during Assignments, but not employees between Assignments. The substantive claims listed elsewhere were not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- mutuality of obligation
- s.212 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Somerville
- PGMOL
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.