Case 3314856/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Mr P Soni, Legal Officer — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314856/2022
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Postle heard the case at Norwich on 2 June 2023. The claimants were Mr Brendan Ansbro and Mrs Clare Ansbro. The judgment states that the claimants were not employees of the second respondent, Ansbros Catering Consultancy Limited.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claim against the first respondent, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was not well founded. The judgment does not set out any separate reasoning on the listed breach of contract and redundancy categories, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separately analyse this category; it records a single finding that the claimants were not employees of the second respondent and that the claim against the first respondent was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not separately analyse this category; it records a single finding that the claimants were not employees of the second respondent and that the claim against the first respondent was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.