Case 3312327/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Simpson (counsel) For the v Miss Z Tahir (solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312327/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Simpson (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Watford by video before Employment Judge Tegerdine on 5 June 2024, considered the claimant's detriment complaint under section 45A(1)(f) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The issue determined was jurisdiction rather than the underlying merits of the complaint.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because Mr C Marshall was not an employee or worker of Royal Mail Group Limited within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, he was not entitled to the protection afforded to workers and employees under section 45A(1)(f).
No remedy was awarded because the claim was not entertained on the merits. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the detriment complaint under s.45A(1)(f) ERA 1996 because the claimant was not an employee or worker within s.230(3) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.45A(1)(f) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 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.
- 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.