Case 3314950/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Mr L Baker (Advocate) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314950/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 28 November 2023 at Watford by CVP, with no attendance for the claimant and Mr L Baker appearing for the respondent, Employment Judge Wyeth considered the claimant's status for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claimant's complaints. The judgment states that the claim was struck out and dismissed in its entirety. No findings were made on the substance of the complaints and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not list the complaint types, but the case listing identifies public interest disclosure as one of the tribunal claims. The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claim in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not list the complaint types, but the case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the tribunal claims. The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claim in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
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.