Case 3313621/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Barrett v DA GT Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313621/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss F Barrett
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss F Barrett was not an employee but a worker within s230(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the lawful employer was the Second Respondent, Wendover Woods Cafe Ltd, and dismissed the claims against the First Respondent, DA GT Ltd.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and the notice pay claim for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment does not record a substantive merits finding on those claims because the jurisdiction point was decisive.
The holiday pay claim was resolved by consent rather than by a contested finding. The Second Respondent agreed to pay the claimant £411.75 gross within 14 days in full and final settlement of that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee but a worker within s230(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the same reason, following the finding that the claimant was a worker rather than an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the Second Respondent agreed to pay £411.75 gross within 14 days in full and final settlement of the holiday pay claim. | Settled | — | £412 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £412
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(3)(a) 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.