Case 3320575/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Istenik v Racesafe Ltd; and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320575/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss E Istenik
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at Cambridge Employment Tribunal on 24 February 2023, Employment Judge Dobbie gave oral reasons on preliminary status issues. The tribunal found that Miss Istenik had a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times, including the date of termination.
The tribunal also held that Racesafe Ltd was the end-user of the claimant's services and was a principal within section 41(5) Equality Act 2010. Workforce People Solutions Ltd was described as an intermediary agency between the first and third respondents, and the third respondent was found to be the claimant's employer within section 83 Equality Act 2010. The second respondent was not removed from the proceedings because it could potentially be liable under section 111 Equality Act 2010. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy are recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records preliminary findings on disability status and respondent status only. It does not record a substantive merits determination on a claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.41(5) Equality Act 2010
- s.111 Equality Act 2010
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.