Case 3330813/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr P Quill, Solicitor — 2019

Case reference: 3330813/2018
Decision date: 10 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McNeill QC
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr P Quill, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that Miss M Omollo was not an employee of The Governors of Oldfield Primary School within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

The tribunal also held that she was a worker within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Her claim in respect of holiday pay was therefore permitted to proceed. This judgment records only that jurisdictional finding and does not determine the holiday pay claim on its merits.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Tribunal held the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Tribunal held the claimant was a worker within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, so the holiday pay claim was permitted to proceed; no merits decision is recorded in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.