Case 3313182/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T v S McKee and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313182/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr T
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by video at Reading Employment Tribunal on 10 October 2024 before Employment Judge George. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was self-representing, the first respondent was represented by its HR manager, and the second respondent was represented by counsel. Written reasons were not provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was noted in the record.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by Julian Support Ltd under a contract of employment within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. That status finding meant the claimant could not pursue the employment-rights claims against the second respondent on the basis asserted.
Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal against the second respondent was dismissed. The complaint of wrongful dismissal / notice pay against the second respondent was also dismissed. The written record contains no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not employed by Julian Support Ltd under a contract of employment within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal / notice pay complaint against the second respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.