Case 6001001/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Represented himself For the v Ms A Wright, lay representative (Tribunal Advocate) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001001/2024
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Represented himself For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent because there was a lack of mutuality of obligation. It also noted that the claimant accepted this in evidence.
Even if the claimant had been an employee when carrying out assignments, he had only worked about six hours in his last year of employment, and there was no overarching contract bridging the gaps between assignments. The Tribunal therefore found that he did not have the two years' continuity of service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
For those reasons, the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not an employee and did not have sufficient continuity of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim for the same jurisdictional reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- mutuality of obligation
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.