Case 4107576/2017 · Employment Tribunal
G Woolfson Mr Steven Heap v Represented by:- Mr C Edward –15 Advocate Sinclair Voicenet Limited and 3 others — 2018
- Case reference
- 4107576/2017
- Decision date
- 26 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
5 namedClaimant
G Woolfson Mr Steven Heap
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 17 and 18 April 2018. The tribunal was asked to determine two preliminary issues: the identity of the employer and the claimant's employment status. During the hearing, the tribunal was informed that agreement had been reached on those matters.
The judgment records that the respondents accepted Mr Steven Heap was employed by the first respondent, Sinclair Voicenet Limited, and was a worker of the second, third and fourth respondents, Sinclair Holdings Limited, Merlin Business Solutions Limited and Sinclair Entities Limited. The tribunal therefore entered the agreed status findings in its judgment.
No substantive unfair dismissal, breach of contract or whistleblowing claim was determined in this decision, and no monetary remedy was awarded. The judgment is confined to the preliminary status issues and records the parties' agreement on those questions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal recorded that agreement had been reached on the preliminary issues of identity of employer and employment status; no substantive claim was determined in this judgment. | Settled | — | — |
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.