Case 3312999/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312999/2022
- Decision date
- 11 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was a preliminary issue decision on employment status. Employment Judge L Brown found that Vilma Venciuviene was not employed by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust as an employee, but was engaged as a limb (b) worker within the meaning of s.230(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the Claimant was found not to be an employee, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider her claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, or breach of contract in relation to failure to pay notice pay. The judgment states that the claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held the Claimant was not an employee but a limb (b) worker within s.230(2)(b) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Claimant was found not to be an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the notice pay breach of contract claim; dismissed because the Claimant was found not to be an employee and therefore could not bring it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(2)(b) 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.